Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Stornoway Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CURRENCY COMMISSION.

Mr. THURTLE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House as to the cause of the delay in the publication of the evidence given before the India Currency Commission?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The evidence was published here in August last.

ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Mr. KELLY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government propose to publish the memorandum recently submitted by the Indian Air Board to the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. KELLY: 3.
also asked the Under-Secretary of State the number of Indians employed in the Royal Air Force in India, and whether there is any limitation as regards the capacity in which they are employed?

Earl WINTERTON: Royal Air Force units in India are in the same position
as units of the British Army in that country—i.e., they are units of the Imperial Forces and not part of the Indian Army. These units comprise no enlisted Indian personnel but, as in the case of British Army units, Indians are engaged as civilians for various duties. The number of Indians at present so employed is about 1,000.

DEPARTMENTAL WARRANT OFFICERS.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state the result or the reference made to India last July with regard to placing Departmental warrant officers of the Indian unattached list on exactly the same footing as the British service warrant officer with regard to pay, leave, allowances, and other concessions?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not yet received the Government of India's Report, but has asked them to expedite it. I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend when it has been received and considered.

COMMUNAL RIOTS, CALCUTTA.

Colonel APPLIN: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the postal and telegraph clerks and employés in Calcutta suffered hardship during the recent Communal riots, and were put to expense and loss in consequence of their duties and whether the Government propose to compensate them or give them a bonus of pay to cover this period?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has no information on the subject, but the matter would in any event, be one for, the local authorities to deal with.

PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (LABOUR REPRESENTATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the nomination of Lala Ramchand to fill the council seat recently created by the Government of India for the special representation of factory labour and what is the reason for this departure from the Government of India's policy of not filling nominated-seats until after the elective seats had been filled?

Earl WINTERTON: My attention has now been called to the recent nomination of this gentleman to be a nominated member of the Punjab Legislative Council to represent the labouring classes, but my Noble Friend has no information for what reason the normal practice referred to in the last part of the question was not followed in this case.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received any communication from the Government of India with regard to the suggestion that the International Labour Organisation might be asked to call a conference between representatives of India, Japan and China on the question of labour conditions in these countries?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. Before giving further consideration to the suggestion, the Government of India would prefer to await the results of the documentary inquiry which is now being conducted by the International Labour Office, in accordance with a Resolution of the International Labour Conference, into the conditions of work in Eastern countries.

Mr. THURTLE: When the results of the inquiry are known, will the matter he further considered?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir.

DEPUTATION TO FIJI.

Mr. OLIVER: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have come to a decision with regard to the publication of the Report of the Indian deputation which proceeded to Fiji five years ago?

Earl WINTERTON: It is expected that an announcement will be made shortly. The question is connected with that of the publication of later papers which explain the present position.

SALT SUPPLY.

Mr. OLIVER: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action the Government propose to take in regard to the recommendations that India should become self-supporting in the matter of salt supply contained in paragraph 179 of the Report of the Taxation Inquiry Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: The Committee considered that it is desirable that India should be made self-supporting in the matter of salt supply if this end can be secured by the granting of a strictly temporary advantage to the local manufacturer, and recommended that an inquiry should be made by the Tariff Board into this aspect of the question. My Noble Friend has not yet heard from the Government of India what action they propose to take in the matter.

UNEMPLOYED SEAMEN (BENGAL).

Mr. D. GREENALL: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken by the Government of Bengal with regard to the Resolution adopted by the Bengal Legislative Council early in the year asking for the appointment of a committee by the Government of India to inquire into the causes of unemployment among seamen in Bengal?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of Bengal have not taken action on the Resolution referred to, as the question of recruitment of seamen is one for the Central Government. It is under the consideration of the Government, of India.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNUSED RUBBER COUPONS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 11
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any time limit has been fixed for the validity of a rubber coupon issued to a small holder prior to 1st November, 1926;
(2) whether, seeing that the existence of unused rights and unused rubber coupons is presumably an indication that the persons who hold these rights have been over-assessed, he will say whether any system of reassessment is contemplated;
(3) whether a rubber estate having unused export rights in respect of, say, 10,000 lbs. of rubber, covering restriction periods prior to 1st November, 1926, and also having export rights in respect of, say, 8,000 lbs. of rubber for the current restriction period, is able to export its 8,000 lbs. during the six months' period November-April and to carry forward into the May-July period the still unused rights in respect of the 10,000 lbs?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The answer to the first question is in the negative, and to the third in the affirmative. In regard to the second, reassessments of standard production take place annually in respect of the 12 months beginning 1st November, and it may be assumed that the authorities in Ceylon and Malaya will take into account, so far as is reasonable, the actual export figures of the different estates.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Does my right hon. Friend think the problem as a whole is better dealt with by allowing coupons in respect of release when the rate was 100 per cent. to be used when the rate of release is 70 or even 60 per cent.?

Mr. AMERY: We have to consider all the facts of the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (SENTENCE ON NATIVE)

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the sentence of three years' hard labour imposed on Ira Macdonald Lawrence, a Nyasaland native, for importing into the country six copies of the "Negro World," published in Philadelphia, and two copies of the "Workers' Herald," published in Johannesburg; to what country it is proposed to deport this Nyasaland native; why, since the Ordinance under which the native was convicted was promulgated before the end of the War as a War-time Measure, it is now continued and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr AMERY: No, Sir. If this native has been convicted under the Seditious Publications (Prohibition) Ordinance of 1918, he would, in the ordinary course, serve his sentence in Nyasaland, and the question of deportation would not arise. The Seditious Publications Ordinance was not passed as a War-time Measure, and the question of its continuance is primarily a matter for the consideration of the Governor of the Protectorate in the light of local conditions. I shall, no doubt, receive a report from the Governor on the case.

Mr. WILSON: When will the Report be received?

Mr. AMERY: I shall be glad to communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. WILSON: Are these papers prohibited in the district where they are published?

Mr. AMERY: No. The local government have power to prohibit the distribution of those papers which they think, under the local circumstances, would create sedition or trouble.

Mr. WILSON: May we understand what "local circumstances" are?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot answer that offhand.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL RESEARCH STATIONS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 15 and 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Imperial Conference that a chain of research stations should established in appropriate centres in tropical and subtropical parts of the Empire;
(2) what other re catch stations are contemplated in addition to those already existing at Trinidad and Amani?

Mr. AMERY: The progressive establishment of a chain of tropical research stations has been recommended by the Imperial Conference to the consideration of the Governments concerned, but I am not yet in a position to indicate what further stations it may prove desirable to develop besides Trinidad and Amani.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government of Australia has been approached with a view to establishing a research station for New Guinea?

Mr. AMERY: The establishment of a research station in New Guinea would be a matter for the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. I am not in a position to say what action will be taken by that Government in regard to the recommendations of the Imperial Conference on the subject of research.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA (COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 17.
asked the Secretary of State fur the Colonies if the
proposed Bill for compulsory military service in Rhodesia has been considered by the responsible authority in Rhodesia; and whether he can give the House any information?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that the Bill has been introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Southern Rhodesia, but so far as I am aware it has not yet been passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

DEFENCE FORCE.

Mr. SMITH: 18 and 20.
also asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if the Bill for compulsory military service in Kenya has been considered by the responsible authority in Kenya; and whether he can give the House any information;
(2) if he can state the personnel and the terms of reference of the Sub-committee of the Overseas Committee to which the question of a defence force of European settlers for Kenya Colony was remitted, as reported by the Kenya Government in the Legislative Council on 10th December last; and whether its Report may be placed upon the Table of the House?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that it is the intention of the Governor to submit the Bill to the Legislative Council before the end of the present year. The Subcommittee referred to is a Sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence and its proceedings are not published.

ILL-TREATMENT OF NATIVES.

Mr. SMITH: 19.
further asked the Secretary of State if he will inquire whether a European of the name of Jasper Abraham, who has recently been tried in Kenya for the brutal treatment of a native, was the same Jasper Abraham who flogged a native to death in 1923, and was then sentenced to two years' imprisonment?

Mr. AMERY: I will make inquiries of the Governor of Kenya.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETPLEMENT.

Mr. SHORT: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the total number of families and
individual emigrants who have been assisted to settle in the Colonies and British Dominions during the current year?

Mr. AMERY: The total number of persons who have been assisted to migrate under the Empire Settlement Act during the period 1st January to 30th September, 1926, is 52,750. Included in this number are 5,500 families (consisting of 20,648 individuals) who went to Australia and New Zealand. Information as to migrant families for Canada, included in the total of 52,750 persons, has not yet been made available by the Dominion authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL FAST-SHIP SERVICE.

Mr. HANNON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the proposal for the establishment of an Imperial fast-ship service, consisting of seven new large 22-knot ships of a type which does not now exist, between Great Britain and Australia, via India and Ceylon, for the carriage of mails, passengers, and refrigerated and general cargo?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to the information contained in the Resolution adopted by the Imperial Conference on the subject of ocean communications.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

REPAIRS (STONEWORK).

Viscount SANDON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Government has accepted the Report on the condition of the fabric of the Houses of Parliament; when the first Estimates will be submitted; and what would be the additional total and yearly cost if repairs or replacements were effected in exact conformity with the original design?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): My right hon. Friend is awaiting the advice of the Fine Arts Commission before reaching any decision regarding the repairs to the stonework, and it is not yet possible to state when an Estimate
will be submitted. The estimate contained in the Report provides for repairs being carried out in accordance with the original design, but the Fine Arts Commission are at present considering whether and to what extent it is possible to simplify various decorative features and eliminate detail without detracting from the original design of the buildings.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the First Commissioner consider—owing to the great importance of the building and the proposed repairs, which might materially alter the building—appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the future of the buildings and their construction?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir. My right hon Friend does not think there is any necessity for such a Commission.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether immediate steps can be taken to make good the stonework which has been removed from the central tower of the Houses of Parliament, which in its present state is a serious disfigurement to the building as a whole, without waiting for complete estimates for the necessary reparations to the rest of the building?

Captain HACKING: Although my right hon. Friend could not agree to deal with any portion of the repairs until he has received the recommendations of the Fine Arts Commission in regard to the building as a whole, he will certainly consider the possibility of dealing with this portion of the building in the early stages of the repairs.

Mr. HARDIE (for Mr. N. MACLEAN): 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the large sum which it is estimated will be the cost of repairing the ornamental work of the Houses of Parliament, he will consider some scheme of reconstruction of the interior with a view to providing more accommodation and better facilities for Members of the House to perform the necessary routine work which their constituencies expect of them?

Captain HACKING: It will be for this House to decide whether the repairs to the stonework are to be carried out. As regards the latter part of the question, my right hon. Friend will always be glad, subject to financial exigencies, to consider any scheme which would add to the convenience of Members.

DIVISION BELLS.

Colonel DAY: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works the number of division warning bells fitted on premises apart from this House, together with particulars as to the addresses and nature of the premises where such bells are fitted?

Captain HACKING: There are 33 Division bells outside the Houses of Parliament. These bells are fitted under private arrangement with the Serjeant-at-Arms, and it is open to anyone to apply. It is not considered that any useful purposes would be served by publishing the list desired by the hon. Member.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what is the cost of the bells?

Captain HACKING: There is no public charge. The cost falls upon the individual concerned.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what rental is charged for the use of the bells?

Captain HACKING: Not without notice. It does not affect this House at all. It is a private arrangement between the Post Office and individuals.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the rental is £2 15s. and that it is a high figure?

Captain HACKING: The hon. Member evidently knows, because he has had private experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY.

Mr. SHORT: 27.
asked the Minister of-Agriculture the total amount of subsidy granted to the sugar beet industry since its inception?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The total amount of subsidy paid to the beet sugar industry since the passing of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, is £2,681,946.

Mr. SHORT: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of acres of land under beet cultivation during 1926 as compared with 1925?

Mr. GUINNESS: The acreage returned as being under sugar beet in England and Wales this year was 125,814 acres, as compared with 54,750 acres in 1925.

Mr. DEAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, if, in view of the fact that there are some districts most suitable for the growth of sugar beet without a factory within a reasonable distance, he will consider the advisability of the Government either building or giving financial assistance for the erection of such factories?

Mr. GUINNESS: The financial assistance to be given to the sugar beet industry has been defined by Parliament in the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925. It has in certain cases been possible to afford some additional assistance towards the erection of factories by way of guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee set up under the Act, but the money available under that Act is now nearly exhausted.

FARM SETTLEMENTS.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what have been the annual profits, if any, and losses on the various farm settlements held under the Small Holdings Colonies Acts, 1916–18; and what annual amount respectively of these profits and losses is in respect of estate account and farming account respectively?

Mr. GUINNESS: Full particulars of the annual profits and losses (farm and estate) of each of the Ministry's farm settlements during the past three years are contained in the trading accounts which are printed as an appendix in the Report of the Ministry's Proceedings under the Small Holding (Colonies) Acts, 1916–18, which was published 10 days ago. During the past three years the average annual loss for all the settlements com-
bined has been £11,265 on the farm accounts and £41,976 on the estate account, making an average annual loss on both accounts of £53,241. These losses are arrived at after taking into account hypothetical interest charges on Exchequer advances, headquarter administrative expenses, and provision for depreciation of buildings and farm implements. A large part of the loss mentioned is due to the interest charges.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Does that take into account any appreciation of the value of the estates?

Mr. GUINNESS: These figures refer to annual trading losses as a result of the Ministry's proceedings under the Small Holdings (Colonies) Acts.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: They have nothing to do with the capital account?

Mr. GUINNESS: No; the capital account is dealt with in the basis of annual balance sheets.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any fertiliser included in the First Schedule of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill about the permissible percentage of which any doubt has been expressed among competent scientific authorities, due to experiments since the preparation of the schedule, will be referred, immediately after the passing of this Act, to the advisory committee to be set up under the Bill?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir. It will be open to the advisory committee to consider any question of this nature.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMS:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease there were last week; and whether the origin of the recent outbreaks in Kent and Sussex has yet been traced.

Mr. HURD: On a point of Order. I think, Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to suggest that I might put, as a supplementary question to this question, a Private Notice Question, which I proposed to address to the Minister. May I put it now?

Mr. SPEAKER: I told the Ion. Member that he could ask the question if we reached it before a quarter to Four o'clock.

Mr. HURD: You were also good enough to say, Sir, that I might put a supplementary question to this question.

Mr. SPEAKER: Question 33 was not asked, but I hope that there will be time for the hon. Member.

Mr. HURD: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give details of the fresh outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Wiltshire and Norfolk; and state whether the causes have been traced and what progress has been made here and on the Continent in preventative research?

Mr. GUINNESS: In the outbreak at Wacton near Norwich, confirmed on the 23rd November, 26 cattle were found affected, all with recent lesions. In all 146 animals have been slaughtered at an approximate cost for compensation of £1,550.
The outbreak at Ramsbury, Wiltshire, was confirmed on 25th November. Five cattle with recent lesions were found affected. Fifty-five cattle have been slaughtered. No origin has yet been established in either case, but inquiries are still proceeding.
As regards the last part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 22nd November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.- Colonel Heneage).

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFALGAR SQUARE (NEW PAVING).

Mr. RYE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what steps he proposes taking to provide sufficient falls to the new paving in Trafalgar Square and by so doing avoid accumulations of surface rain water on the stones?

Captain HACKING: I am informed that the new paving has been given the maximum amount of fall in every direction, having regard to the existing levels. A few small adjustments in the edges of some of the stones have still to be made to improve the surface drainage; but I
would point out that it is very difficult to prevent some temporary accumulations of water in such a large flat area as Trafalgar Square.

Mr. RYE: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that water accumulates on the stones and necessitates the employment of men to sweep the water into the gullies, after rain?

Captain HACKING: There is some accumulation, but it is not so bad as it was when there was an asphalt surface.

Mr. PENNY: In taking this matter into consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of preventing banners and so forth from being erected on Nelson Column on Sunday, to the disfigurement of it?

Mr. RYE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works what was the total cost of the paving work recently carried out at Trafalgar Square, including all Departmental charges, such as surveyors, clerks of works, foremen, and those engaged on the staffs in Storey's Gate?

Captain HACKING: The total cost of the work in Trafalgar Square is approximately £18,160. The cost of the stone, and of laying it, amounted to approximately £14,400, but it was found necessary during the course of the work to replace nearly the whole of the concrete bed, lay a new drainage system and to provide new cast-iron pipes for the fountains, involving the additional expenditure of £3,760. There was no special supervising staff appointed, and records are not available of the staff charges attributable to any specific work.

Mr. RYE: Can the hon. and gallant Member say why Derbyshire stone was used in preference to Yorkshire stone, which is considered by borough surveyors as a more suitable stone for the purpose?

Captain HACKING: Because Derbyshire stone was considered by the. Office of Works to be the most suitable stone.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Member say how long it took to do the job?

Captain HACKING: Many months longer than it should have done. There was delay in getting the stone, but it was not the fault of the Office of Works.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAX OFFICE, DUMFRIES.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding in the Dumfries second tax district office; whether he has under consideration any proposal to remove this establishment to the recently-vacated Post Office buildings; and, if so, when a decision may be expected?

Captain HACKING: It is proposed to transfer the Dumfries second tax district to the old post office, and the necessary works of adaptation are now in hand. It is hoped to affect the transfer by the middle of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. JAMES'S PARK (SUSPENSION BRIDGE).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can now make any further statement, to allay public uneasiness, as to the offer to replace the suspension bridge in St. James's Park by a permanent stone structure?

Captain HACKING: I have nothing further to mid to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell on 10th November.

Sir W. de FRECE: Can the hon. and gallant Member say when a definite decision will be reached in this matter?

Captain HACKING: I cannot say when any definite decision will be reached, but this House will be taken into account before any decision is reached, and the plans, if there are plans, will be placed in the Library, so that everyone can see them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (FILMS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the desirability of every facility being given for the making of British films with a British atmosphere, he will consider the advisability of allowing motion
pictures to be taken in Hyde Park, under proper conditions, in the mornings between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. during the summer months, at a time when the park is little used by the general public?

Captain HACKING: The First Commissioner does not wish to initiate the policy of utilising the Royal Parks for such purposes, without abundant evidence that such a change is in the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL VAGRANTS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a number of boards of guardians have declined to carry into effect the Order of his Department that casual vagrants should be detained for two nights; what is the reason for such refusal; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is aware of a few instances of this kind. The action of the guardians is usually based upon the fact that the existing wards are insufficient to provide for the numbers which occasioNally require sleeping accommodation. The guardians are being pressed to make the necessary arrangements, and my right hon. Friend believes that in a number of cases the matter is now under consideration.

Mr. BAKER: Will the hon. Member state the number represented by the word "few"?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Member had better give me notice. I do not think it is a very large number.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK (IMPORT REGULATIONS).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether milk produced in Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man will come under the Public Health (Imported Milk) Regulations, 1926, or under the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, for England; and, if it comes under the latter, what steps are to be taken by him to see that the Order is carried out in the above-named countries?

Sir K. WOOD: Milk brought from Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will not come under either the Public Health (Imported Milk) Regulations, or the Milk and Dairies Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICAN LOAN BILL.

Mr. W. BAKER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the East African Loan Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on Thursday last in regard to business.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be available?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill cannot be published until after the Financial Resolution has been carried.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN AND SUDAN (ADMINISTRATION).

Viscount SANDON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to the question of transferring Aden, with Socotra and its other dependencies and the Persian Gulf protectorates, from the India Office to the Colonial Office, and the Sudan from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, or whether he will have a full investigation made into these matters?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Colonial Office is already the responsible Department in respect of political affairs in the Aden Protectorate and on the Arabian Littoral of the Persian Gulf. The question of the future administration of Aden is now under the consideration of the Government. No change is contemplated in respect of the Sudan.

Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that the proper sphere of the Colonial Office is administration?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question is now under consideration, as I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

PROCEEDINGS (PUBLICATION).

Mr. W. BAKER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise the publication, in a uniform edition, of all records of the proceedings of the Imperial Conferences horn the beginning?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Parliamentary Papers containing the records of the proceedings of past conferences from 1907 onwards are still on sale, and I hardly think the time has arrived for considering action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. In the meantime the hon. Member may like to know that a summary of the proceedings of past conferences, and of the more important Resolutions passed by them, is to be found at the beginning of the "Dominions Office and Colonial Office List."

ROYAL TITLE (IRELAND).

Viscount SANDON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister why, under the terms of the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee, it is proposed to single out for inclusion in the title of the King the name Ireland, alone of all the other Dominions, seeing that the status of all the Dominions is the same?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question of my Noble Friend is based on a misapprehension. Although the Irish Free State has Dominion status, Ireland, which includes Northern Ireland, is not a Dominion. As has already been announced, the proposed title does not purport to define the various political units composing the Empire, but is a descriptive title, on geographical lines, of the territories of which His Majesty is King. The proposed form is regarded as an accurate geographical description of those territories, while involving a minimum of change in His Majesty's title as at present by law established.

Viscount SANDON: Would it not be more appropriate to link up Northern Ireland with Great Britain by saying the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and have the Free State placed on the same basis as Canada and Australia as one of the Dominions by being omitted?

RESULTS ACHIEVED

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to results achieved by the Imperial Conference?

Mr. AMERY: My hon. Friend does not, I am sure, expect me to make an adequate detailed statement in reply to his question; for that I must refer him to the published proceedings of the Imperial Conference and to its Reports. But I think I might summarise the general outcome of the Conference in a very few words. Basing ourselves on the two cardinal principles which govern the relationship between Great Britain and the Dominions, namely, their complete equality of status and their unity under a common Crown, we have succeeded in giving clearer expression to that equality in matters of constitutional procedure, while we have arrived at practical conclusions in our methods of co-operation in foreign affairs, in defence, in migration, in trade and communication, and in scientific research, which will, I believe, contribute greatly to the strengthening of our unity.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there any summary available or to be published of the proceedings of the Conference?

Mr. AMERY: If a summary is not available now, it will be in a very few days.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to the Press comment that the Empire now exists only in name?

Mr. AMERY: Certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FILMS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will agree to the institution of a small inquiry into the facilities which can be legitimately given under Government auspices for the making of British films in this country?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. The general question of the steps that can be taken to stimulate the manufacture of British films is under consideration. If, however, my hon.
Friend will state the nature of the facilities he has in mind, I will have them looked into.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the exhibitors, the distributors and the film producers cannot agree among themselves Would it not be better to allow them to come to some agreement themselves first before suggesting any inquiries?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is not quite the question which was put to me by my hon. Friend, and I am not in a position to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister when the conference of all parties to consider the question of the equal Parliamentary franchise between men and women will be called?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present add anything to what I have already said on this subject.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the Prime Minister say whether the pledge to equalise the franchise is still held by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer.

Captain BENN: May we assume then that the Government are in some doubt as to whether they will be able to fulfil their pledge?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL.

Mr. G. HARVEY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give any indication of the date when it is intended to take the Second Reading of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that the progress of business will allow of this Bill being passed into law before Prorogation.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the small shopkeepers fear they are going to be treated very harshly; and will the Government pay great attention to
the wishes of these small shopkeepers in the Committee stage?

The PRIME MINISTER: If that be so, it will be brought out in the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as the annual expenditure of the Mines Department is limited to £250,000 a year, His Majesty's Government will consider treating this as a procedent for the rationing of all other State Departments, beginning with an all-round and fixed percentage of reduction to be effected in the Estimates for 1927–28?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 20th May last to my hon. Friend the Member for the North West Division of Camberwell, of which I am sending him a copy. I do not see how economy would be served by fixing an annual limit of expenditure as in the case of the Mines Department considerably above the actual figure of the Estimate.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask whether the economy scheme to be effected before the next Budget is sufficient without fixing a definite rationing?

Mr. McNEILL: That is quite a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORT TALBOT TOWN COUNCIL.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 56.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received a request for an inquiry from the Port Talbot Town Council into the charges made at a recent meeting of the Council, and vouched for by the Town Clerk, to the effect that the Communists have obtained tobacco and cigarettes by charging them to the management of the kitchen where the School children were being fed; and whether he will accede to the request for an inquiry?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not yet received any such request. The charges in question can be raised by
any ratepayer when the accounts are being audited by the District Auditor.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that this matter has already been investigated and confirmed by the Town Clerk and other officials of the Port Talbot Council, and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this despicable fraud is not continued indefinitely?

Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter for the people themselves and the District Auditor.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (TRADE BALANCE SHEETS).

Mr. REMER: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the action of the Chairman in a recent inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act to require the applicants to produce their trading balance sheets; and if he will issue instructions that where the balance sheets are so required from the applicants the balance sheets of those importers of foreign goods opposing the application shall also be produced?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I am informed that in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the balance sheets of certain firms were produced by the applicants as an integral part of their evidence-in-chief with regard to their loss of trade. It is for the applicants to determine in each case what evidence they are prepared to submit, and I do not- propose to issue any instructions to commit tees concerning their procedure beyond those given in the White Paper.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the inquiry the Chairman of the Committee made some strong comments on some applicants who did not produce their balance sheets?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The Committee does not require evidence which the applicant does not care to produce. An applicant produces such evidence as he considers desirable in his own interests.

Mr. REMER: If the Chairman insists, as he did in this case, is it not vital that applicants should produce their balance sheets?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I do not think any chairman would insist if the applicant did not wish to produce papers.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry, in order to ascertain whether the facts are not as stated in the question?

Mr. HARRIS: Is not the business of an applicant asking for a privilege to prove that he is suffering some disability?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes. It is for applicants to produce such evidence as they think desirable in support of their case.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage extent to which our exports of merchandise paid for our imports in 1913, 1923, 1924, and 1925?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The, values of the total exports of merchandise from the United Kingdom, including re-exports, formed the following percentages of the -values of the total imports in the years specified: 1913, 82.6 per cent.; 1923, 80.8 per cent.; 1924, 73.7 per cent.; 1925, 70.2 per cent. The figures for 1923–25 include our trade with the Irish Free State. It is estimated that, if calculated on a like basis, the percentage for 1913 would be about 84.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Mr. CLAYTON: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the recommendations of the International Conference, recently held at Washington, to formulate proposals for dealing with the problem of oil pollution of navigable waters through international agreement?

Sir B. CHADWICK: His Majesty's Government accept in principle the recommendations of the International Conference. The form which the international agreement, to give effect to these recommendations, should take is at present receiving consideration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of accepting the recommendations of another Washington Conference?

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL (UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the notice which has been issued this month stating that, in accordance with the Decree, No. 10,634, of the Portuguese Government whereby certain abandoned assets become the property of the Portuguese State, amongst which are Portuguese bonds and shares the owners of which have not collected their dividends or generally exercised their rights of ownership during a period of 20 years, and dividends and interest coupons which have not been collected within five years from their due date; notice is given that Coupon No. 18 and all previous coupons of the shares of the Banco Nacional Ultramarino are no longer payable, and that all subsequent coupons will also become prescribed in favour of the Portuguese State five years after their due date; and, in view of this statement, will he make representations to the Portuguese Government, pointing out the effect of making such a decree applicable to past coupons held by British subjects?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I have no information on the subject, but I am consulting His Majesty's Ambassador at Lisbon. I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member after I receive the Ambassador's reply.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it right, with respect to a law of this sort regarding abandoned assets, that the Portuguese Government would be quite within their rights in passing a law for the future, but that it is grossly unfair to make it retrospective?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I have no information, and I do not wish to give any reply to a supposition as to what law may or may not have been passed by the Portuguese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE DODECANESE (MADAME TILIACOUS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he is aware that all British Reports about events in the Dodecanese have to be sent by our Athens Legation through the Rome Embassy; whether he has received such a Report concerning the actions of a body of men from the Italian warship "Clio" at the house of Madame Tiliacous, a British subject; and whether he can make a statement on the subject;
(2) on what grounds Madame Tiliacous, a British subject, was refused permission to bring her grievances before the Governor of the Dodecanese and refused a passport to enable her to join her husband in London?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's first question. His Majesty's Embassy at Rome does not control communications passing between this country and Athens, and the British Consul at Rhodes is at liberty to communicate with Athens direct if he wishes. As regards the remaining parts of the first question and the statements in the second question, I have received no information beyond an unconfirmed report based on statements in the Greek Press. His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Rhodes has been requested to report by telegraph whether any British subject was involved in any recent event.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MECHANICIANS AND SHIPWRIGHTS,

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the port establishment numbers of chief mechanicians and chief shipwrights do not admit of these ratings having the spells of home and harbour service authorised for all ratings by the drafting regulations; and whether anything will be done to remedy this state of affairs?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

PETTY OFFICERS (CONFIRMATION).

Sir B. FALLE: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the event of an acting petty officer failing to receive confirmation as a petty officer at the end of 12 months and being reverted to leading rate, he is informed of the reasons for non-confirmation?

Mr. DAVIDSON: This matter is within the discretion of commanding officers.

Sir B. FALLE: Will my hon. Friend say by what Regulation or Order such decisions are come to?

Mr. DAVIDSON: By no Regulation, but by custom, which is found by experience to be the better course.

PORT EDGAR BASE (STOKERS).

Sir B. FALLE: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of chief stokers allowed in the complement of Port Edgar base and the number actually borne; and whether, in view of the curtailed Home service of chief stokers, he will arrange for any chief stokers borne in excess of complement to be discharged to their Home ports?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The number actually borne is three, but a reduction to the allowed complement of two will be made in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (AIR SERVICE).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any efforts are being made at the present time to link up by seaplane service the islands of the West Indies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): An Inter-Departmental Committee was recently appointed to explore the opportunities which may exist for the operation of civil air transport in the West Indies, and their Report is now being studied.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as a start, forming a base at Georgetown, radiating in one way inland and on the other to Barbadoes and Trinidad?

Sir S. HOARE: That is one of the questions which is being considered. The main question is one of money, and the obligations will fall mainly on the West Indies services.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: These services will pay for themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL (PRICES).

Sir W. de FRECE: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in connection with the removal of coal restrictions, he will state what steps he has taken, or is taking, to ensure that the needs of the small consumer will be safeguarded?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The President of the Coal Merchants Federation of Great Britain has, at my request, sent out a circular impressing upon all members of the Federation the importance Of securing fair distribution of coal as between the small and large consumers. I hope that this will be enough, without recourse to any emergency powers; but these will, of course, remain for a short time and could be used if necessary.

Sir W. de FRECE: With all the information at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman does he think there is any justification for household coal to be sold at £3 18s. per ton now?

Colonel LANE FOX: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper, but I have no doubt whatever that in the next few weeks there will be a considerable drop in price.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a recent case at Ascot, where one lady was able to purchase five tons of coal—the case being dismissed by the Court—while at the same time there are thousands of miners in gaol for having taken a few cobbles from slack heaps?

Colonel LANE FOX: That question does not arise.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a short time?

Colonel LANE FOX: I intended a short time.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that he is not depending on the Regulations at the present moment, but is relying on other powers?

Colonel LANE FOX: If the hon. and gallant Member had listened to the answer he would have heard. I cannot repeat it again now. What I said was that the President of the Coal Merchants' Federation had at my request issued a circular, and if that was not sufficient there were emergency powers available in the background.

Captain BENN: That is to say, the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he was not relying on the Emergency Powers, but on his Circular?

Mr. C. WILSON: Is Christmas a "short time" or not?

Colonel LANE FOX: It depends on how long it takes the hon. Gentleman to get over it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEBRIDES AND WESTERN ISLES (MAIL SERVICE).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can now make a further statement regarding the early restoration of the regular mail service to the Western Isles?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The Postmaster-General is in communication with the contractors, and I hope that the normal service will be restored at a very early date.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 71.
also asked the Postmaster-General whether the Hebridean mail service contractors will receive payment of the full subsidy despite the present restriction of the service?

Viscount WOLMER: In view of the position in which the contractors were placed as a result of the coal shortage, it was considered reasonable to acquiesce in a temporary restriction of the services without a reduction in the normal payment. I should add that in spite of the increased cost of coal, the services were maintained in full until the 8th of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (WAR PENSIONS).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the fact that an applicant for extended unemployment benefit is in receipt of a war pension is taken into account in the consideration of the application; and whether he can state the number of ex-service men who have been refused extended benefit during the last 12 months on the ground that they were in receipt of a war pension?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): A war pension is only taken into account in the class of case where the family income is a factor, and then only where the claimant himself draws the pension, it is not taken into account as part of the family incomings if it is drawn by any member of the family other than the claimant. I regret that I have not the figures asked for in the last part of the question.

Mr. KENNEDY: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair that a Regulation of this sort should be operated, in view of the fact that war pensions are paid for specific disability? Does he think it fair that this Regulation should operate without Parliamentary sanction?

Mr. BETTERTON: Of course, that is entirely a matter of opinion, and could only be discussed in Debate. Prior to March of this year, the pension was taken into account whether the holder of the pension was the applicant or not. Since that date, the pension is not taken into account except in cases where the applicant himself is the holder of the pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL TEACHERS, RHONDDA.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that, in spite of the provisions of Section 29 (2) (c) of the Education Act, 1921, the Rhondda local education authority have passed a Resolution that no person should be employed who was not or did not become a member of the National Union of Teachers; if he is aware that this ban applies to the National Union of Women Teachers; and whether he will take any steps to deal 'with this matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am aware of the Resolution referred to, which is, of course, contrary to the accepted principle that a teacher is free to join any lawful association so long as such membership does not interfere with the proper discharge of his duties and is equally free to abstain from joining any association, if he so desires. Such action by a local authority tends to lower the dignity of the teaching profession and to degrade its standards. The particular provisions of the Education Act referred to in the question only apply, however, to non-provided schools, of which there is only one in the area of the authority.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does this Resolution not interfere with appointments to headships?

Lord E. PERCY: I should want notice of that question. I am not sure of the exact terms of the Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC.

Major GLYN: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the introduction of one-way traffic at certain points within the Metropolitan Police area has resulted in an economy in the number of police officers on point duty; if so, how many; and what annual saving does that reduction of staff represent?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): No, Sir; there is at present a slight increase in the number of police required, but it is hoped that it may be possible to reduce the number when the public are more, familiar with the system.

Mr. RYE: Could we have any information as to whether the number of fatal accidents has increased since one-way traffic has been in operation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I could not give the figures without notice.

Mr. RYE: I take it that there has been an increase?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I only express my view. I have heard of no
increase. I must not be taken as giving a definite answer unless the question is put on the Paper.

Mr. REMER: Has my right hon. Friend received reports showing that one-way traffic makes it much more difficult for pedestrians to cross the streets?

Sir W. J OYNSON-HICKS: I am bound to say that I have not.

Major GLYN: 75.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will obtain a return from the proper authorities in England and Wales which will indicate the number of fatal accidents in town and country due to persons being killed, or so injured that they died, as a result of being either passengers in private or public motor vehicles, or being knocked down by road motor vehicles when either walking or bicycling or driving in a horse vehicle, since the police reports are admitted to be inadequate?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am considering the question of extending the Police Returns for 1927 to include further particulars of the kind suggested. Pendding the issue of these Returns, my hon. and gallant Friend may care to refer to the Registrar-General's Statistical Review for 1925, where certain particulars with regard to fatal accidents are given in Table 22, page 429.

Major GLYN: Is it a fact that it is quite impossible to know how many people are killed every year by accidents with motors?

Sir W. JOYNSON-H1CKS: I agree, and the very fact that I am trying to alter the mode of the returns shows that I am not quite satisfied that they give all the information which ray hon. and gallant Friend desires.

Mr. PALING: Would it be possible to give the figures, in these accidents, as to the injuries that are due to broken glass in motor cars?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that point. I cannot say more.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. gentleman bring out a return giving a comparison between the accidents with motors and on the railways?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am glad to say that, with the right hon. Gentleman's assistance, accidents are very few indeed, almost negligible, on the railways.

Major GLYN: 86.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties experienced by children, even when accompanied by nurses, desiring to cross the highway in the neighbourhood of the parks, especially where one-way traffic is in operation, as at Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch; and whether the London Traffic Committee have considered the possibility of setting up overhead bridges with inclined ramps at congested points when subways would be too expensive?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The whole question of the safety of pedestrians when crossing the carriageway of streets where one-way traffic is in operation is under consideration by the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and I must await their Report before reaching any conclusions in the matter.

MINOR OFFENCES.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 80.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the time that the police are required to give to minor offences against the Motor Car Acts and the result on the detection of crime, he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of police in the Metropolitan area?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Without accepting the suggestion implied in the question, I may say that the strength of the force has been under investigation for some time. I hope to have before me shortly all the materal necessary to enable a decision to be arrived at.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the observations made by the learned Judge at the Leeds Assizes last week on this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, I need hardly say that all observations of learned Judges are brought to my notice, and I have read these particular observations.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the learned Judge's view?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With great deference, I say I know more of the details of police work than the learned Judge. I am investigating the whole matter and, when I have finished, I hope everything will be satisfactory both to the learned Judge and to my hon. Friend.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he sees fit to increase the number of police to deal with motor offences, will he also see that the cost is borne by the road users?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

DRIVING MIRRORS.

Colonel DAY: 88.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider legislation having as its object the compulsory equipment of driving mirrors on all motor and steam vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which was given on 24th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham (Major Sir Granville Wheler), of which I am sending him a copy.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OMNIBUSES).

Mr. REMER: 87.
asked the Minister of Transport what conditions are imposed on an application from a local authority for a loan for the purchase of motor omnibuses; and whether stipulation is made that they are to comply with Circular No. 231 (Roads), issued on 31st July, 1925?

Colonel ASHLEY: So far as is practical I endeavour to ensure that the vehicles proposed to be acquired comply substantially with the recommendations indicated in Circular No. 231 (Roads).

Mr. REMER: Is the Minister aware that the Circular in question is causing a great deal of difficulty to the manufacturers of motor omnibuses on the ground that it cannot be complied with?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the Circular is in vague terms, I do not think that the manufacturers will be put at a disadvantage when they put their omnibuses on the street.

Mr. REMER: Is it the case that most of the municipalities stated on the tender forms that this particular Circular was to, be complied with and that this caused great difficulty to manufacturers?

Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me and put his point before me, and I will go into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (DATE).

Mr. REMER: 76.
asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the difficulty which old people and invalids have in voting at Municipal Elections in November, he will consider legislation to change the date of these elections to a date in the summer months?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of changing the date was raised some years ago, but there was much difference of opinion among municipal authorities on the subject. I am afraid that it would not be possible to propose legislation for this purpose unless it is clear that it is generally desired.

Mr, REMER: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to inquire from the municipal authorities as to their views on the subject and is he aware that a great many people think that the so-called apathy at the, last election was caused by the deplorable weather?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the special reason why the winter season is maintained for the holding of these elections?

Sir W. YOYNSON-HICKS: With regard to the first supplementary question, I think it better that the organisation which represents the municipal corporations should consider the matter first. If they make representations to me as a body I should, of course, give very careful consideration to them, but I see no reason at the moment for circularising municipalities. With regard to the second question, I think it is because the weather is bad at this time of the year that people do not look upon it as a good thing to vote.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: What is the reason for the maintenance of the winter months, which are not so advantageous to the public interest?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not the great trouble getting the young people to vote?

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBACCO AND. SWEETS (HOURS OF SALE).

Sir FRANK MEYER: 77.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention, prior to the introduction of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill next Session, to cause further investigations to be made as to whether the restrictions on the sale of tobacco, sweets, ice-cream, and certain kinds of fruit, etc., in places of entertainment, restaurants, and refreshment rooms can be abolished without prejudice to the interests of the general body of shop assistants?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I have pointed out in replies to recent questions, this matter forms part of the larger question of the early closing of shops, and cannot, in my opinion, be dealt with separately. I should be very glad, indeed, to get a settlement, but, as previously stated, the Government are not in a position at present to take up this question.

Sir F. MEYER: Is it not a fact that, owing to this Measure being passed annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, there is no adequate Parliamentary opportunity for discussion of this question, and will my right hon. Friend, in considering the future, take into account the interests of the consumer and not always the feelings of shop assistants and traders?

Sir W. de FRECE: Is it not a fact that these restrictions are largely avoided by the introduction of automatic machines, and is it not the case that since the introduction of these machines there has been an increase in juvenile crime?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is rather a problem, I think. So far as the other question is concerned, it is quite true that there is no opportunity of discussing this question on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but I have had no information that there is anything like a. majority feeling in the House requiring a change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am always willing to consider representations from Members of this House. I did have a memorial signed by 110 Members last Session, and that was all. If there is a consensus of
feeling, as I said at the time, I shall be willing to appoint a Committee to go into the whole question and to advise me upon it.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considers it any more wrong for people to buy chocolates and cigarettes after a certain hour than to buy drinks?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEMICAL WORKS EXPLOSION (CASTLEFORD).

Mr. FORREST: 78.
asked the Home Secretary the cause of the recent explosion at the: chemical manufacturing plant of Hickson, Limited, Ings Lane, Castle-ford, Yorks?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The circumstances and causes of this regrettable explosion are still under investigation, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND.

DELEGATED POWERS.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 79.
asked the Home Secretary if he will indicate the matters to which he recently referred in his official statement as having been delegated to the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The powers so delegated are in respect of Irish services, as defined in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there are any such services defined in that Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly. All the administration in Northern Ireland is delegated by this House to the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland. They have also executive authority to carry that out.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, as a matter of fact, under the Act of 1920, powers, instead of being delegated to the Government of Northern Ireland, were reserved to this House, leaving all the residue of powers in the hands of the two Parliaments it was proposed to set up in Ireland? It was exactly the contrary?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is complaining that we delegated powers. If so, perhaps he is a greater purist in language than I am. There are powers delegated to Northern Ireland by this House, and I agree that there are powers reserved to this House by the same Act.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Can my right hon. Friend mention any of the powers that were so delegated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If my hon. Friend puts down the Question again, I will give him a much longer answer.

GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (COST).

Sir F. WISE: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to date and the estimated total cost of the new Parliament buildings, including the High Courts and the Speaker's house, in Northern Ireland?

Mr. McNEILL: The estimated total cost of the new buildings referred to, including the cost of sites but not equipment, is £1,879,670. The cost to date has been approximately £367,268.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the cost to be met by the Government of Northern Ireland or by the Imperial Government?

Mr. McNEILL: By the Imperial Government.

INCOME TAX (MUSIC HALL PERFORMERS).

Colonel DAY: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an American music hall artiste recently in this country was in receipt of a salary, when performing here, amounting to £900 per week for several months; and what steps are taken with a view to such short-term earnings being taxable in this country?

Mr. McNEILL: As the hon. Member will appreciate, I am not in a position to furnish information with regard to particular cases of Income Tax liability. As to the general question which he raises, I cannot usefully add anything to the reply which I gave to him on the 11th November.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have raised this question several times, and on each
occasion I have been given the answer that the matter is receiving consideration? Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether these very large incomes cannot be taxed before the people leave the country?

Mr. McNEILL: I quite appreciate the persistence of the hon. Member and I hope he appreciates the equal persistence of my reply.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British subjects appearing in America and other countries cannot leave those countries to return home until they have supplied a statement that they have paid their Income Tax and will he consider the introduction of the same law in this country?

Mr. McNEILL: As I have said, all these matters are being and have been considered.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the position of numerous British artistes who were deprived of a considerable part of their income owing to the general strike?

SINKING FUND, 1926–27.

Sir F. WISE: 84.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amount of the statutory Sinking Fund for 1926–27?

Mr. McNEILL: The Sinking Fund this year is fixed by law at £60,000,000.

Sir F. WISE: What is the statutory Sinking Fund? What is the actual amount that has to be paid?

Mr. McNEILL: I have just told my hon. Friend it is £60,000,000.

STERLING EXCHANGE (NEW YORK).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether sterling has in any way been supported in New York since 1st May by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

NATAL (SMALL-POX).

Mr. D. GREENALL: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether
he will give information as to the extent of the epidemic of small-pox among the Indian community in Natal?

Mr. AMERY: I have no information on the subject.

CANARIES (EXPORT).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give any figures showing the increase of the export trade of canaries to the United States of America; and from what part of the United Kingdom these birds are principally drawn?

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that there has been a considerable increase in the export of canaries from Great Britain, but I have no figures as to the extent of this trade. With regard to the second part, I am informed that the West Riding of Yorkshire is now the principal breeding centre for canaries, but that birds are exported from all parts of this country.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that almost 20,000 are exported from the east coast to America every year, and can he explain why these birds are sent to the Continent before being re-exported to the United States?

Mr. GUINNESS: We really have not much information. There is no Department responsible for canaries, nor have we any official figures.

Mr. HARRIS: Why not include them in the Merchandise Marks Act?

SUDAN PLANTATIONS SYNDICATE.

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. JOHNSTON): 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, Limited, has applied for an extension of the period of their concession; whether the conditions upon which the Government of the Sudan has agreed to extend the period of the concession include restrictions of dividend and guarantees on behalf of the natives; and if, considering the financial benefits accruing to this company as a result of British credit guarantees, he will afford the House an opportunity of discussing
any fresh agreement to be made with this company?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The arrangement for the division of the proceeds of the sale of cotton as between the Syndicate on the one hand and the Government of the Sudan on the other has been modified to the advantage of the latter. The interests of the cultivators, who receive 40 per cent. of the proceeds of the cotton and the whole of the other crops, were already fully protected and are equally protected under the new arrangement. The Syndicate has raised and will raise the necessary capital for its undertaking in the open market, and has derived no financial benefit from British credit except indirectly in so far as a loan of £400,000 was made by the Sudan Government to the Syndicate out of the guaranteed loan for the construction of works which are to be taken over by the Government at the end of the concession, when the loan would have been repayable. Under the new arrangement the loan will be repayable at six months' notice.
In face of the difficulties which are inherent in the development of a new country, I am satisfied that the Sudan Government, as trustees for the interests of their people, have succeeded after protracted negotiations in making satisfactory terms on their behalf, as I think this House will agree when it sees the terms.

Sir F. MEYER: Is it not a fact that the enterprise of this Company has conferred immense benefits on the population of the Sudan?

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not also a fact that they have been making enormous profits and that they expect to make even greater profits?

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: For what length of time will the new arrangements last?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

CHINA.

SITUATION AT HANKOW.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have any information to give to the House regarding the condition of affairs at Hankow?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether I ought to offer my congratulations or my condolences to the right hon. Gentleman on his return, but I hope I may say that I am glad to see him back.
Serious developments in the situation have taken place during the past week at Hankow, where a grave anti-foreign movement appears to be at work.
A union of the lower grade employés of the Chinese Maritime Customs was formed on the 21st of November with the support of the superintendent, who is a Chinese official. This union announces that its aim is to oust the element of foreign management from the service and bring it under purely Chinese control. The Commissioner of Customs hopes that it may be possible to keep the Custom House open and to maintain the lights service with foreign labour, but this may be difficult if the Custom House, which is in the Chinese city, is picketed. The latest report is that the situation in this respect appears somewhat easier. The union has presented its demands, but these are understood not to be of an impossible nature, though it may be that this is only its preliminary move.
At the same time, the general strike movement has made very great progress The servants of the Japanese are already on strike, and the Japanese have to import their food supplies from ether centres. The Communist section is showing great activity, and there is fear of a general strike being forced. This would throw out of employment thousands of lower grade workers, and it would be easy for agitators to incite them to viofence.
The situation is now being considered by His Majesty's Government, and I shall be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question on Wednesday, when T hope I shall he able to give him further information.

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he, or his Department, has received a cable from the British community at Hankow, stating that the situation is very grave indeed, and that
they are in daily expectation of an incident which will involve bloodshed, having serious consequences, and that our naval forces at present there are not considered adequate for file protection of British subjects, and can he give the House an assurance that our naval forces there will be strengthened without further delay?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in receipt of a telegram of the character described by my hon. Friend. The matter, as I have said, is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, including the Admiralty.

WANHSIEN INCIDENT.

Mr. LOOKER: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to inform the House of the facts relating to the incident which occurred at Yungyang, on the 29th August last, leading to the seizure of two British steamers at Wanhsien; and if he will state the actual circumstances which led to the detention of these steamers and the extent of any loss of life or damage which occurred at Wanhsien on the 5th September as the result of the firing which took place?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As was stated in the reply given on 10th November to the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting, I am not yet in receipt of full reports of the incident. I hope, however, to lay papers as soon as my information is completed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Legitimacy Bill [Lords]): Mr. Mitchell Banks, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Rhys Davies, Lord Erskine, Captain Hacking, Mr. Harney, Lord Huntingfield, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Sir Robert Newman, and Mr. Solicitor-General.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Brigadier-
General Sir Henry Croft and Mr. Solicitor-General; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Robert Hudson and Major Price.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill [Lords]): Captain Robert Henderson; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Robert Lynn.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill): The Lord Advocate, Mr. Briant, Mr. Connolly, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Lawson, Major Alan McLean, Captain Alexander Reid, Captain Geoffrey Shaw, and Major Steel.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Major Sir Richard Barnett to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (REGULATIONS).

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th November].
That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 20th day of November, 1926, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Act."—[Sir William Joynson-Hicks.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. J. HUDSON: When the Debate was interrupted on Friday, I was calling the attention of the Home Secretary to the application of these Regulations and to their interference, as I regard it, with the instruments of the law to such a point that a very remarkable result has followed. I was quoting the evidence of Mr. Justice McCardie that during the last few months a very considerable increase of crime has taken place, and, as the learned Judge believes, a very considerable increase in crime that has not been detected, crime where the criminals have not been brought to justice. I was urging that the cause, or one of the causes, of the state of things described at Leeds by Mr. Justice McCardie was that the Home Secretary, through the application of these Regulations, has wasted the work of the police in useless forms, while the real work for which they were created has been almost entirely neglected. You have such a spectacle as the Home Secretary's influence going to this point, that in Derbyshire the Chief Constable, egged on, as I believe, by the Home Secretary, sends at least 100 policemen into a village Court to watch my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]. Of course, hon. Members opposite cheer a statement of that character, because some of them—although I think it is very few who are in this state of mind have come to believe the picture that the Home Secretary is so fond of painting when he appears before the old Primrose dames of both sexes and describes the red peril. These people see so red that even
hon. Members forget the general esteem in which my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgeton and Dumbarton Burghs are held Personally in this House. They are the last people in the country whom one would expect to need 100 policemen, or, as I have had from other estimates, from 200 to 400 policemen, to watch their movements.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Why not 1,000?

Mr. HUDSON: Whether it is 100, which is an estimate I think hon. Members opposite will accept, the efforts were wasted, and the result has been that the law of the country, which ought to have been safeguarded in every direction, has been left in neglect. The most serious side of the application of these Regulations, to my mind, is that the Home Secretary has made so many speeches, both in the House and out of it, to justify these Regulations, he has issued so many circulars causing chief constables to deviate from the ordinary course of their duties, that it is very difficult now for even a Judge, pursuing the even tenor of his judicial course, to remain entirely uninfluenced by the speeches that the Home Secretary has made, and even though he be not influenced—and I pass here no censure whatever upon the action of our Judges or our magistrates—I will say that, as a result of the Home Secretary's speeches and his circulars, thousands of people in this country now believe that the Judges are influenced in their decisions by the hints which the Home Secretary has given to them. The very hard decisions —I will not say whether they are just or unjust—but the very hard verdicts that have been recently passed, one this last week in South Wales, where nine months' imprisonment has been imposed upon a man, who, we believe, and, if hon. Members opposite knew him, would believe, too, is a thoroughly good man, a man whose service is required in the community—the fact that that is done, and the fact that the Home Secretary has delivered such speeches as he has delivered in support of these Regulations, has given the impression in the community that these judgments have been passed—the impression may be right or wrong—in the interests of the friends of the Home Secretary.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow a departure from our Rule that no reflection can be passed on the decisions of the Courts, unless on a substantive Motion. It cannot come in ordinary Debate.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: As some doubt arose before, or, rather, a question was put on the subject, may I point out that it is a fact that in the "Manual of Procedure" it is pointed out that, except on a substantive Motion, no reference may be made in discussion—
where the authorities mentioned include the Heir to the Throne, the Viceroy of India, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either House of Parliament, and Judges of the Superior Courts of the United Kingdom, including persons holding the position of a Judge, such as a Judge in a Court of Bankruptcy or a County Court Judge.
I understand that the reference at this moment is to Justices of the Peace, and I ask whether, in your judgment, the Rule which precludes any reference to Judges of the High Court is intended to refer to decisions given in summary Courts presided over by Justices of the Peace?

Mr. SPEAKER: The particular cases which have just been referred to in the "Manual of Procedure" are given by way of illustration; they are not complete. The Rule of the House that no Court of Justice must be attacked in Debate, save on a substantive Motion, applies to all Courts of Justice.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Arising out of what my hon. Friend has said, I take it that he was not in any way criticising the action of the Magistrates, but was making the point that the severity of the sentence was due to having been unconsciously influenced by the advocacy of the Home Secretary, and that it was the Home Secretary he was attacking, and not the Justices.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is not entitled to suggest that any Court of Justice has been influenced. The whole basis of our constitutional separation of the Executive from the Courts of Justice would be done away with if we departed from the ancient practice of this House.

Mr. HUDSON: On that ruling may I say—and I would apologise if I cast any stricture on His Majesty's Judges—that
that was not my intention at all. What I said was that those judgments having being given, and given at a later date than the speeches made by the Home Secretary, there is a feeling in the mind of the country, not caused by the judgments such as would be given by Judges or Magistrates, but that the Home Secretary's speeches have caused a general weakening in the administration of the law, that people in the country have no confidence in the law; and while it may be true that Judges, beset with great difficulties, give their judgments as they ought to give them, and as we expect them to be given, the attitude of the Home Secretary is removing from the Judges that support in the public mind they ought to have, namely, the support of the whole people of a belief in law, which they cannot have as long as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary holds his present position. That is the claim I was making, and I submit to you, with all respect, that is was in order, and that it was a perfectly valid claim to make.

Mr. SPEAKER: As long as the hon. Member kept to that, I did not rise. It was only when I was afraid he was going a little further that I thought it my duty to intervene.

Mr. MAXTON: This is a rather serious question. I want to put it to you, that on Wednesday last week, in this House, the Attorney-General read out a list of Labour Justices of the Peace who have been removed from their position, because of certain action they had taken, without the procedure of Petition from this House or the other place. Does that not indicate that there is a complete difference in the status of the Justices of the Peace from Judges of the superior Courts?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not so far as this Rule is concerned. It may in other respects, but our -Rule is quite a clear one—that there must not be criticism of a Court of Justice, except. on a Motion properly placed on the Order Paper.

Mr. MAXTON: Then was it out of order for the question to be put here last week, and answered by the learned Attorney-General?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite another question. That is not a criticism of the Courts of Justice.

Mr. MAXTON: The question put in this House cast a reflection on every Labour Justice of the Peace who had participated in any way in the general strike. I ask you, was it in order for such a question to appear on the Order Paper, if it be not in order for hon. Members to discuss the action of other Justices of the Peace?

Mr. SPEAKER: That was not out of order. I do not at the moment recollect exactly what were the terms.

4.0 p.m.

Captain BENN: May I point out that at present we are in a difficulty, because the Act blurs over the prior distinction between the Executive and the Judiciary, and, in an earlier Debate, the Home Secretary himself thought well to read out from the Treasury Box certain legal definitions of what he held to be intimidation and so forth for the guidance of Judges. Therefore, althought I recognise and accept your important ruling about the distinctions between the Executive and Judiciary, I submit that in this case we may be free to discuss the effect of these directions to the Benches in the decisions which they give.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has a right to discuss the Home Secretary, but I never allow a Court of Justice to be brought into question except by the proper procedure.

Mr. MAXTON: Well, rub it in to the Home Secretary.

Mr. HUDSON: I was endeavouring with all my strength to carry out the in-junction just given to me. I had no intention, and I still have no intention, to pass any reflection upon His Majesty's Judges, but I want to urge upon the attention of the House that the Home Secretary, acting as the present right hon. Gentleman is acting, is bound to influence to a very considerable extent, I will not say the Judges, but the police, and he it bound to influence the types of action that are brought into the Courts. He may through the very great help which the newspapers give him influence the mind of a jury, and, after all, the verdict is given by the jury and not by the Judge. We have to-day in this very important administrative position a gentleman who, I believe, it bringing the law constantly into greater and greater
disrepute. Quite apart from the other evil influences of these Regulations, I consider that they ought to have been withdrawn in order that some greater respect for the law might be the result.
I desire to bring against the Home Secretary a more serious charge still, not so much against him Personally, as on account of his very particular relations with the party that has egged him on to make these Regulations and administer them in the spirit in which be has done. Conservative conferences and the howls of the Primrose League have created these Regulations, and not the needs of the situation. What has happened? Some sort of body has had to be found for the hectic imagination of the Home Secretary and his supporters, and, if the Reds were not there to be kept in order, the Home Secretary's party has not been above creating them so that he might have an excuse for dealing with the Reds through the various Regulations that he has brought in. I was asked just now about Hull. Hull is a particularly good point to illustrate the charge I am now making. I was in Hull the other day, and I was brought in contact with the fact that at the end of last week, though Communist leaflets are held to be the particular danger from the point of view of these Regulations, 30,000 Communist leaflets were distributed throughout the central division. Does any hon. Member say that they were distributed by the Communists? [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly!"] If it be the contention that the Communists have delivered them, then surely with all the Tories in Hull to watch them, with all the paid speakers the Tories have had there, with the town entirely in ferment, those Communists should have been discovered. The Home Secretary has been telling the Tories at meetings and conferences which he has addressed that he is going to drive the Reds out. Why did he not get hold of those Reds who delivered those 30,000 leaflets? As a matter of fact, hon. Members who interrupt to say that it was the Communists know as well as I do that it was not the Communists who delivered them.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Allow me to say that those leaflets recommended the people of Central Hull to "Vote for Kenworthy." Is it suggested that anybody but a Communist would say that?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is getting a little wide of the Question before the House.

Mr. HUDSON: I hope, if you think the interrupter was getting a little wide, you will allow me to say that I have no intention of travelling from my main thesis, which is that, if these Regulations are successful from the point of view of the Home Secretary, then at least they ought to be so successful as to prevent the distribution of leaflets by Communists, because the Home Secretary has told this House that wherever Communists hold meetings or carry on any activity whatsoever—

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Quite untrue.

Mr. HUDSON: I have at least judged that to be the tenor of all the Home Secretary has stood for in his speeches, and I believe there are a large number of people in the country who believe that is the Home Secretary's intention, and that it is one of the intentions of these Regulations. What I wanted to prove was that these leaflets had not been distributed by Communists at all, but by friends of the Tory party in that very spirit. [Interruption.] Well, we can all now admit that the argument is getting home. These leaflets have been distributed in the spirit in which all the leaflets and speeches of the Tory party have been distributed and made during the last six months. They could not prove disorder. They therefore had to make disorder. If the Communists were not bad enough from their point of view, they were prepared to create Communists and Communist literature by forgery. I am here to charge the Tory part with every type of dishonesty. They are not the party of law and order. These Regulations are not for that end. If law and order exist, some reason has to be found to create unlaw and disorder. Many a good and honest man, though I will admit an angry and irritated man, has been cast into gaol by these Regulations. They have only got there by the spirit that Toryism throughout this long dispute has done all in its power to create. It is because we know that—

Sir W. MITCHELL: Is this your Hull speech?

Mr. HUDSON: I would like to say that as a result of speeches like this delivered in Hull you will have the pleasure of receiving back to this House the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, who has been here so long. All I desire to say, in conclusion—[Interruption]— I am very glad that hon. Members desire a conclusion. They will get their final quietus after many speeches like this in a general election, because of the attitude they have adopted with regard to these Regulations. I hold that with the continuance of these Regulations—I am not here to plead for their withdrawal—there will remain on the wall that writing which in the long run will be the judgment of the party which brought them in and administered them. I admit that there are good points in the Regulations, but it is not those good points that have been utilised. I admit that there are safeguards to the community, and that there are means whereby, through these Regulations, you can keep for the community its fuel, its food, and its shelter. But these are not the things that have concerned the party opposite. These things have passed almost unnoticed, and no attempt has been made to administer them.
I should disdain to be a Member of a party which dared to copy the administration of the Regulations of the Tory party opposite, but at least there is this to be remembered. One or two of the Regulations upon which they have turned their backs are there to he remembered, and, as surely as they have used these Regulations to repress the freedom of our land, the day will come, and come shortly, when the party on these benches will have the opportunity of using the special Regulations now again brought before the House, not for the repression and the gaoling of our people, but in order that the people may be safeguarded in their means of life, and in order that the mines, the land, and the railways, which have been held for selfish purposes, may at least become the possession of the community and the people may enjoy the use of them for the general welfare of the community.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 2, after "1926," to insert the words "other than Regulations 21 and 22."
Perhaps the Home Secretary will relieve the situation by telling us at the
outset whether he really meant what he said on Friday of last week when he told us that he hoped in the course of two or three days that the atmosphere would be such that he could contemplate the withdrawal of many of these Regulations. During the week-end the situation has changed very considerably, and I suggest to him that a very large proportion of the 500,000 miners to whom he referred on Friday as being out of work will now have resumed work or be well on their way back to work if there are places available for them. That being the case, and in view of the further fact, as the Home Secretary intimated to us, that it would undoubtedly need something more than an Order in Council to withdraw these Regulations, once they are passed, may we, if not plead with him, at least ask him whether he is going to accept the Amendment? If he will intimate that such is his intention, it will save me the trouble of making the observations which I intend to make in case he refuses.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Member had better give us the pleasure of hearing his further observations, but I will make a statement immediately he has moved his Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We are now in more doubt than ever. It does seem to me that the changed situation between Friday and to-day warrants us not only in asking the right hon. Gentleman to remove Regulations 21 and 22, but in expecting to hear from him that these hordes of policemen who have been sent into the mining districts are going to be forthwith sent back to their homes, so that our people can live a perfectly reasonable and normal life. What effect has these Regulations upon the mining population? The right hon. Gentleman cannot actually know what they have meant to them. Otherwise, I am convinced that instead of persisting in passing these Regulations, he would feel it his bounden duty, even from a humanitarian point of view, to withdraw at least Regulations 21 and 22. There is no possibility at this moment of people interfering with the distribution of food, fuel, light or other necessities, and to that extent Regulation 21 can be dispensed with. As for the causing of
sedition, it seems to me there is no more likelihood of seditious speeches or seditious actions to-day than there was either before or after the outbreak of this dispute. The Home Secretary has already told us there is no further need for the application of Regulation 22. He says that he, as an individual, is prepared to accept all the responsibility for banning meetings or for permitting them to be held; and if for no other reason than what has occurred as the result of these Regulations, I shall persist in demanding the withdrawal of Nos. 21 and 22.
Some 10 or 12 days ago I sent a letter to the Home Secretary with reference to two cases. One case was that of a local police sergeant who had persistently taken advantage of these Regulations to terrorise local people day after day and week after week, fetching them out of bed at midnight, although no offence had been committed, stopping them when they were strolling through the streets in an orderly way, stalking through their gardens at midnight and uprooting what they had been doing in a horticultural sense, and, generally, making the lives of some people intolerable because they were not willing to concede the mineowners' terms. I have had no reply from the right hon. Gentleman to that complaint, and I suppose that after the ruling of Mr. Speaker this afternoon there is no possibility of our ever having any sort of redress for these definite and real grievances. In our district there are various people who have resumed work and others who have not agreed to resume work. Those who have resumed work regard these Regulations as permitting them to do anything, and to say just what they like, to any man, woman or child in eases where the man has not agreed to resume work. Apart from the terrorisation practised by some of the police, the blacklegs, as the miners call them, have so far intimidated those who are not working as to make the lives of these men, and their women and children, well nigh intolerable. These Regulations have not only safeguarded the man who has returned to work, but have deprived of his liberty the miner who has not yet returned to work. It has given people a licence such as nobody in this country is entitled to.
These Regulations have created in many mining districts an atmosphere of bitterness and an atmosphere of strife that will persist for a long time. It has led to dozens of people being sent to gaol for no particular offence—other than something that may have resulted from provocation by a local policeman or local people who have resumed work and have unduly intimidated those who have not. Men have been sent to gaol, and women have been sent to gaol; and in one case, at least, as the Home Secretary knows, a child 11 months was sent to gaol along with the mother. While there may have been some justification for some of the Regulations seven months ago, I suggest there is no justification for a single one of them to-day.
I do not know where we stand with regard to the law. I have been in a mining district where some' 20, 30 or 70 strange policemen have been patrolling the streets, and I have watched policemen go to people standing in their own gardens and tell them to get inside their houses, because it was expected that in course of time some men would he returning from the local colliery. I suggest this action by the police is a direct outcome of Regulation 21. People are not safe in their own homes, they are got out of bed at midnight, they are not safe if they stand on their own doorsteps, they are not safe even when they stand in their own gardens. The restrictions placed an human liberty have had the effect of granting to irresponsible people a licence which they have used with deadly effect so far as miners, their wives and children are concerned. There is, or has been, a complete reign of terror in many mining districts, and the sooner these Regulations are withdrawn and people are permitted to live a normal life the sooner shall we remove bitterness and strife, and the sooner can we hope to instil peace in the future. I am not expecting much peace and conciliation as the result of the settlement which has been imposed on the miners at the point of the economic, or starvation, revolver, but at least now that men are resuming work policemen ought to be sent back to their own districts, and local populations left in the hands of policemen who understand their psychology, will not irritate, terrorise or tyrannise them and will see that the law is administered
in the best sense. I also want to refer to the restrictions which have been placed on the normal liberty enjoyed by people performing their trade union duties. On the last occasion on which these Regulations were discussed we sought from the Home Secretary a specific reply to a specific question—Were trade unionists who were performing their normal picketing duties permitted to carry on as usual? The Home Secretary said that so long as they did not call upon people who were at work to break their contract, so long as they sought to get men to refrain from working only after they had given legitimate notice to end their contracts, they were entitled to carry on with their picketing work. Whatever the Home Secretary may have said, however, the Regulations have had this effect, that police inspectors—whom apparently we are not allowed to challenge in this House—have definitely told trade union leaders that they are not permitted to carry on this normal peaceful picketing. Men who have resumed work could not be approached either in the street, in a social institute, or even in their own homes, and there has been a general repression such as I think the Home Secretary would not permit did he know what was actually taking place in some of the districts. These things are known to us who live in the midst of bodies of mine workers, and our local knowledge of the persecution that has taken place, and of what has happened in the local Courts, ought to guide the Home Secretary in deciding what he ought to do in restoring liberty now that at least 80 per cent or the miners are back at work, or will be in the next 24 hours.
The Home Secretary told us in his speech on Friday that his decisions under Regulation 22 were largely determined by the reports he received from his inspectors of police. Apparently the Home Secretary makes up his mind on the basis of reports received from inspectors of police. I would like to ask what is our position when we find an inspector of police deliberately exceeding his duty and importing into his work political motives and political imputations which have the effect of not only Increasing a sentence, perhaps, but of bringing disrepute upon the person who happens to have been prosecuted as the result of these Regulations? I do not
want to refer to a particular Court; but these cases have taken place. The Secretary for Mines, when questioned to-day upon the restrictions with regard to the sale of coal, said certain things were going to be done. Well, we are justified in believing this—that at the moment there is one law for one section of the community and one law for the other section, one law for the rich and one law for the poor. What I am referring to is a case in which a lady purchased five tons of coal when, under the restrictions, she could not have more than a hundredweight in one week. That case was dismissed; but because of the atmosphere which has been created under these Regulations, there are dozens of men in gaol for 14 days or 28 days who have merely been picking coal. It was not the heinousness of the offence that warranted 14 days or 28 days in gaol, but there were the comments made by inspectors of police; and they are the men who supply the Home Secretary with the information on which he decides the issues in this House.
If it is the county inspector of police who makes up the Home Secretary's mind as to what he ought or ought not to do, I want to ask whether or not the county inspector has his mind made up as a result of reports from district inspectors. If that is the case, I think it is fair that we here should he able to quote statements of inspectors of police to prove, not only that the Regulations have been made use of to alter the mind of a very high public official, but that they have imposed inflictions upon people, have dragged common justice down in the mud, and created in the minds of tens of thousands of people a real belief that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. There is certainly no justice at all in the Courts of Britain for working-class people while these Regulations exist, and I think the Home Secretary ought to tell us here and now that these two Regulations are going to be withdrawn; that a normal atmosphere is to be made possible in mining areas; that he is going to do his best to insist on even-handed justice among all sections of the community; that if a Labour J.P. is to be attacked, other Magistrates will be attacked too: and that all Magistrates are to be compelled to administer the law fairly and squarely, with no discrimination whatsoever.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
The need for these Regulations is due to the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Prime Minister and his party. There seems to be so much hypocrisy about the actions of the present Government that it has eaten itself right into the government of this country. In Regulation No. 21 we read about sedition. I want to ask the Home Secretary why he did not prosecute Sir Hugh Bell, who, speaking at the opening of a certain bookstall in London a fortnight ago, said he was sorry we had not got a Prime Minister here who could do some shooting. I have been reading that report, and it is very strange that since that thing was first reported and repeated you do not get the Tory Press quoting that because he was a coalowner. It was not some coalowner who had to be shot, but the miners. If you shoot the miners who will get the coal?

Mr. MARCH: Let them go down the mines themselves and get the coal.

Mr. HARDIE: No, they prefer to deal in Chinese bacon. I want to ask the Home Secretary if he has paid any particular attention to what took place when an hon. Member of this House appeared before a Court in another part of England. I am not going to criticise the decision of the Court, but I want to speak of the circumstances which led up to the prosecution. What I wish to draw attention to is the fact that the evidence brought forward against an hon. Member of this House, who was being tried, was of such a character that its reliability could at once be questioned. The charge was based upon a report said to have been taken by a certain constable. We have not been told whether the man who made the report was either a competent shorthand writer or a competent longhand writer, and when a test was put to that same reporter he failed twice to give any record of what was being said by the gentleman who was charged.
I think if you are going to claim any sense of justice it should be justice which at least includes fair play. Take the question of reporting. Take, the evidence afforded by this House, especially of the capable and highly skilled men in the Reporters' Gallery of this House, Those Gentlemen could give some fine illustrations of what reporting means when in
this House we get three different intonations from three different countries. If you get, for example, the Scottish tongue pronouncing the vowel "a" and the Welshman trying to pronounce the same vowel, it is difficult for even a highly skilled English reporter to tell whether the sound is "eh" or "ah" Under such circumstances how can you take what is reported in the case to which I have referred as being the offending part of a speech? I will guarantee that I could speak the same sentence in another dialect and no reporter would be able to get it down.
I am driven to believe that there is no reliability as to truth when it comes to reporting a speech which has something new to the reporter in every vowel and every diphthong. That there can be no guarantee of accuracy in the report to which I have alluded is quite evident from the fact that even when this reporter was put upon his mettle he could not stand up to the first five words of the sentence which was given him to take down. Therefore, I think it is utterly shameful on the part of anyone claiming to represent the Government to have allowed such a fabrication of evidence, and to have undertaken a prosecution upon such a slender basis. If Regulation 21 is to he continued, the Home Secretary will require to have a little more care in regard to what he is doing, because, after all, things go on continuously in one direction, and the Government may find before very long that the actions they are now taking will reColl upon themselves. In the case I have referred to, the Home Secretary has not given any satisfactory answer, and he is always pushing the blame on to some chief constable or other. If men wish to show that they have a deep sense of justice in the eyes of other nations they should not do things by proxy where justice may be tampered with. When you start by proxy in things like this you are bound to come to serious trouble. It is a standing disgrace that evidence could be so drawn up and put before any Court without any justification whatever, and even the reporter who furnished the alleged statements had to admit that he was incapable of reporting. In these circumstances I ask the Horne Secretary to tell the House where he
obtained the basis of the charge made against the hon. Member to whom I have alluded.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I rise to support this Amendment, and am doing so more in the interest of the Home Secretary and his party than on behalf of those who, perhaps, ostensibly or apparently may be suffering from the operation of these Regulations. It is most curious that the Home Secretary should come to this House for the eighth time and ask for these extraordinary powers. It is almost against the right hon. Gentleman's own convictions that he is asking for these powers once more. I suggest that the temperament of the Home Secretary has already disclosed during his notorious political career that he is really a human being unfit to carry out administration under Parliamentary and constitutional methods. He has found it altogether impossible, and he is now struggling and making gigantic efforts to forget his own nature and wipe out his own past in order to get back to what he himself has preached. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to be a Parliamentary figure, but he has entirely failed to carry on his administration upon ordinary constitutional lines. It is only for the right hon. Gentleman's individual safety that he wishes these Regulations to go on longer than his own convictions consider necessary. It has become a growing habit with the Home Secretary to rule the country with erratic and despotic powers rather than by ordinary rules and regulations. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to misunderstand me.
A week ago, when we were discussing the substance of Regulation No. 22, dealing with the banning of meetings, the right hon. Gentleman read out certain passages from the "Workers' Weekly "and other mis-statements and he was asked whether they were illegal. He told us that they were legal in the usual way under normal conditions, and he said that he wanted these powers because he might be called upon to exercise extra legal powers when in his judgment he felt justified in doing so. I further asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would suggest that an alternative political programme, however foolish it may appear to him., is criminal; whether there was any justification in the article he had read for any rising or dis-
turbance; and whether asking the miners to refuse the terms put forward by the coalowners and their agents, the present Government, was a criminal offence. I gather that the Home Secretary objected to my interpretation, and he said it was not fair for me to misrepresent his observations in that way. I should he very sorry to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I have failed to find anything that was objectionable in my interpretation. Probably the right hon. Gentleman may have thought that I was casting upon him a personal reflection by describing the Government as the agent of the coalowner, but that was not the object of my question. The whole force of the argument used by the Communists was based on the assumption that the Government were acting as the agents of the coalowners. That may be untrue from the point of view of the Home Secretary and the Government, but I want to know would it be illegal, and that was the object of my question. I did not use those words in order to give any offence to the Home Secretary, but simply to put a strong case against the Government as it was put by the Communist party.
The Home Secretary suggested that under those circumstances he has to use these extraordinary legal powers. Let me point out that although that may be his honest desire, it is not his nature. Impartial action is not taken even when it is felt that there is reason to fear disturbance and riot, but, as a matter of fact, these Regulations are positively used against the political opponents of the party represented by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary was asked with regard to a speech by Colonel Leather, talking openly of bloodshed, because there was no prosecution, and there is going to be no prosecution; and the excuse given was the flimsy excuse that that speech was not delivered in a mining area. The Home Secretary pursued me from the first day of the Regulations, when I had spoken in Hyde Park, and I think the nearest coal mine was much further away from Hyde Park than from where Colonel Leather spoke. Hundreds of persons, who were arrested and tried, were not arrested and tried because they had spoken so many yards nearer to, or further away from, a coal mine, but because they belonged to the working-class movement and were against
the coalowners; and whoever has spoken of bloodshed and not and shooting, so long as he was a coalowner himself or in favour of the coalowners, is not tried under the Regulations.
I want to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to a particular case, because his chief constables have failed to report this speech to him. He always asks us to give him proofs and quotations; I wonder why the police did not supply him with quotations from this speech as they do with quotations from ours. I want to draw his attention to the fact—I do not know how far the report is correct, but I see that some Conservative papers are very anxious in suppressing it—that his own colleague, the Minister of Labour, has delivered a speech, which is not contemptible but is criminal under the Regulations, in which he said:
It is Cook's folly and cowardice that are ruining the miners.
Just imagine it. A Member of the Cabinet, whose family has flourished on the starvation, under-payment and overproduction of the miners, whose family has made money out of the blood of the miners, and are to-day crushing the miners that their future dividends may be higher than they ought to be under a just administration—that Minister has the audacity to refer to Cook as carrying on a policy of folly and cowardice. Cook is fighting as a hero against the family of the Minister of Labour, who is one of the worst inhuman exploiters, living on they blood-money and the sweat-money of the miners. 'When these things are going on, it does excite feelings in us, just as much as our speeches excite feelings in the Home Secretary and his party, and if our speeches are supposed to incite disaffection among the Conservative civilian population, does he not realise that the civilian Conservative population incite us to feelings on our side?
What I want to point out is that Regulations of this sort are certainly unworkable, but they are quite handy weapons for abuse, and so far, consciously or unconsciously, in every instance the Home Secretary will find that the application of the Regulation No. 21, has been nothing short of the party abuse of an extraordinary, extra-legal power in the hands of one who has always shown him-
self to be a party man above everything else. I honour him for being so zealous a member of his party; I do not blame him for it; but I suggest that it is this over-zealousness which induces him to ask for these Regulations, rather than his impartial judgment on public peace and public affairs. What is the Home Secretary's confession this time in introducing the Emergency Regulations? Last Friday, in the opening paragraph of the speech, he said that he was really hesitating in his mind whether he should come again to the House for these Regulations or not, and in a long sentence he said:
I had hoped, myself, that by to-day it would have been possible for me to say that the condition of affairs was such that I should he justified, as the Minister responsible to the Government and to this House for the maintenance of law and order, in not pressing for these Regulations; but, having regard to the fact that several of the chief constables have advised me that it would be better and safer "—
not that it is absolutely necessary, but that it would be better and safer—
in the interests of the preservation of peace, that the Regulations should be made for some little time longer, I have felt it my duty to put them before the House to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1926; col. 714, Vol. 200.]
On a previous occasion, in anwser to a question that I put to the Home Secretary, there was a candid confession that, if the chief constables report to the Home Office that such-and-such meetings ought to be banned, the right hon. Gentlemen has no disposition to disagree. We really do not know whether Parliament is to govern this country—whether, when advising His Majesty to declare that there is an emergency, the Home Secretary exercises his own judgment, or whether he just does it because the chief constables ask him to tell His Majesty to issue the Proclamation and to tell Parliament to pass these Regulations, because they consider that it would be more convenient to them, and is a little safer and better, if they have these Regulations. That is a very flippant and frivolous way a asking Parliament to set aside its own authority, and to grant this authority, not because even the Home Secretary or the Cabinet in their judgment think so. The Home Secretary's own judgment, desire and wish is that he should not come before
this House, but, because some chief constables have reported that it would be better and safer, he just makes light of the whole nation, of the Parliamentary system and traditional custom, and comes to this House and says, "Well, because the chief constables ask for it, we may just as well give it to them."
We again come to Regulation No. 22, and I again desire to point out to the Home Secretary that the very way in which he has applied this Regulation absolutely proves his illogicality and inconsistency, and the contradictory excuses which he has put forward from time to time are quite sufficient to prove that there is no real necessity in the state of things for these Regulations to be in force. But the Home Secretary temperamentally feels this necessity, and he is just making a sort of personal use of it, in all sorts of circumstances, rather than a State use fox State purposes for the safety the State. On one occasion the Under-Secretary, replying on behalf of the Home Secretary, said:
At Question Time yesterday I thought I made it clear to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) when I told him that the responsibility was given to the chief constable in any district to ban meetings if in his opinion to hold them would be likely to create a breach of the peace. When the hon. Member suggests that these meetings are banned in order to suppress certain political thought, he is quite wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, November, 1926; col. 141. Vol. 199.]
Here we are given an emphatic statement, in the name of the Home Secretary, that the Home Secretary has not thought it right to ban meetings of a political party wholesale but only when, in the judgment of the chief constable, an individual meeting is going to produce bad results. Two or three days after that, the Home Secretary was challenged on the position, and he comes forward and confesses something quite contrary to what was said in his name. The Home Secretary said:
Yes, it will apply to every exercise of the powers under Regulation No. 22. There will he no banning of any meeting or procession under Regulation No. 22 by"—
I beg pardon, I am reading the wrong quotation. The one I meant to read was from a previous occasion, on which he said:
I took the responsibility quite clearly. On the 29th October I wrote to all the
chief constables calling their attention to this campaign of the Communists, and quite distinctly and definitely authorised them to ban all the Communist meetings during this period at which these speakers were announced to speak."—[OFFICIALREPORT, 18th November, 1926; col. 2087, Vol. 199.]
And yet the Home Secretary tries to assure the hon. Member for Caerphilly that no such ban to suppress certain political thought was in his mind. Now we come to the other quotation, which I unfortunately read before by mistake. On that occasion the Home Secretary said:
There will be no banning of any meeting or procession under Regulation No. 22 by any chief constable after to-day, but, if anything of the kind is needed—as I have said, I hope it will not be—it will be done by myself Personally, and, of course, I shall he responsible by question and answer in this House for any exercise of my power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1926; col. 715, Vol. 200.]
we fail to understand, in regard to these three emphatic declarations, how far the Home Secretary recognises his mistakes and admits them, and considers one assertion an improvement on the other, or how far he wants the country to believe that contradictory attitudes and contradictory policies are justifiable proofs of the necessity of these Regulations. In the first place, it was admitted, when the hon. Member for Caerphilly pressed the Government, that it is a wrong policy, and is not justifiable even under the Regulations, just to ban a political party wholesale from holding ally meeting. That was an admission which satisfied the House as being a right policy. Two or three days later, the Home Secretary emphatically announces that, a fortnight before this assurance was given to the House, he had written to the Chief Constable to ban all these meetings and all these Communist speakers that he mentioned. Curiously enough, even after this emphatic assertion by the Home Secretary, we do find that the Chief Constables have not banned all these meetings Some of them—we do not know why— were allowed to go on; and nothing very extraordinary happened arising out of those meetings which, through oversight or for some reason unknown to us, the Chief Constables did permit to go on, in spite of the Home Secretary's general and sweeping orders. Now comes the Home
Secretary and says: "I will withdraw this general authority"; but, will he kindly tell us, is it that he is now convinced that the general authority prior to his withdrawal was abused or wrongly used, and now he is righting his action by withdrawing the general authority or is he doing it merely for some other unknown purpose?
What is the satisfaction to us even if he retains this right to himself? This is again a contradiction in itself. The Home Secretary now says that he is going to deprive the chief constables of their authority and is going to exercise that authority himself. Does he mean that he is going to use his fingers just to sign all Orders, or is he going to use his own judgment to sanction such action or otherwise? The Home Secretary tells us that he is not convinced that Regulation No. 22 is needed, but that he is just putting it forward again and asking for it because the chief constables desire it. Is he still going tamely to follow the chief constables in banning meetings, or is he going to exercise some independent judgment? In a previous answer to a question we were told that he has no disposition to disagree with the chief constable" if they recommend the banning of meetings. We want to know whether it means that the decision of the Home Secretary as to banning a meeting is the exercise of his fingers in putting down his signature, at whether it means the exercise of his own personal judgment in the matter, in contradistinction to the judgment of the chief constables. Then, again, the Home Secretary has already betrayed his idea of how he is to exercise his powers under these Regulations. Under the Regulations it is clearly provided that
A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Regulation by reason only of his taking part in a strike or peacefully persuading any other person take part in a strike.
5.0.p.m.
Though, when providing these Clauses, illegal picketing may be uppermost in the Home Secretary's mind, it certainly applies to all publicists and all speakers who wanted to advise the miners to take part in the strike or to prolong it. I ask the Home Secretary, considering all those paragraphs, which he read out the other day from the Communist papers—some of them written in language which I myself
say would be unnecessary to use on all occasions—did any of those paragraphs, suggesting that the safety men should come out, or that the locked-out men should not go to work, or that men should come out who were at work, mean that the men were to be taken out by physical force or rioting It was a peaceful appeal, made in peaceful language. Why is that not just as legitimate a performance of public duty, asking the miners not to surrender and not to accept certain terms, as some of the speeches delivered by other people? The Home Secretary has also made a confusing use of certain terms. These Regulations are supposed to be for peace and protection. By peace you mean peace against disorder and rioting; but, if one reads the Home Secretary's last speech during the Debate upon the ban on certain Communist meetings, it will be found that he distinctly confessed that he banned certain meetings, not because there was a danger of rioting but because he was using the word "peace" to apply to the peace terms between mineowners and miners. He was screening himself behind the double meaning of the word "peace, "for the sake of insuring that the masters' terms would be accepted by the miners, while Communists and other speakers were not being allowed to protest against the hideous character of those terms.
Does the Home Secretary mean that when we say we do not want peace between the masters and the employés that the meaning covered by this word "peace" is disturbance? He has used a Clause which employs the word "peace" in one sense in order to use the word in another sense. We are told that these Regulations are for the protection of the people against riots, bloodshed, disorder, shortage, and so on. We agree; but what did the Home Secretary confess? I know he did not mean it. He said that the ban on these Communist meetings was not for the protection of the country, but for the protection of the poor Labour party, who are not able to take care of themselves, against the Communists. That is all moonshine. We of the Communist party are not to be misled so easily into a quarrel with the Labour party by these tactics, and the Labour party will not be misled by these tactics. Every man and woman in the Labour movement can assure the Home Secre-
tary that they do not require his protection for it. But, if the Home Secretary was sincere and was not pulling the leg of the Labour party or belabouring the Communist party, then the charge against him by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and by myself and others is completely proved and he confesses it. Our charge is that he is using his power for political purposes. He is banning the meetings of one political section to safeguard the political prestige of another party.
The Labour party are quite able to take care of themselves, and the Communist party are quite able to take care of themselves. There is not a man or woman of worth in the Labour movement who is at all desirous that the fussy Home Secretary should come to their protection and use these rotten Regulations for the protection of the Labour movement. It is for the growth and liberty of the people in that movement that the Home Secretary has been asked eight times from the Labour benches to remove these Regulations. During the past, in applying Regulation No. 21, he has applied it to members of the working class because of certain political opinions. There has been no incitement to disorder as compared with the speeches of Conservative speakers at the saint time. In regard to Regulation 22, the banning of meetings, the Home Secretary has shifted from position to position, and all he has confessed at the end of it is that he issued a wholesale order to the chief constables to ban the meetings of a certain political section for the protection of a political party, his own, and pretending that it was for the protection of the Labour party. We ask the Home Secretary to give up putting in Regulations 21 and 22, because it is now time that, in the eighth month of this autocracy, he should learn to wean himself gradually. He has found it impossible during the last three or four months to be the Home Secretary of this country without those Mussolinian powers at his disposal. He is asking for them now against his own convictions, sheltering himself once again behind the chief constables. The time has now arrived when he should try to be the Cabinet Minister of a British Cabinet without extra legal power, and prove to the country his shibboleth of Parliamentary constitutional powers to be for the good of the people.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I feel that I should apologise to the House for having been the unwitting cause of letting loose the torrent of eloquence which we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman. But he has, if I may say so, one good point, for which I admire him very much, and it is that he never loses his temper. He is always courteous in whatever he says, even in making the suggestion to me—a rather horrible one—that I should gradually "wean" myself, an expression which I never heard of before. This, I hope, will be the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity of speaking on these Emergency Regulations. Let me try to state what my aim and object has been in regard to the meetings. First of all, I have admitted that certain of the Communist documents, which the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) mentioned, were not illegal in the ordinary sense of the word under the ordinary law; but greater powers have been given to the Home Secretary outside the law. They were given to me by Parliament, with the idea that they should be made use of in proper circumstances. I came to the conclusion earlier that there were from time to time certain meetings proposed to be held which, if they were held, would lead to breach of the peace, and in the terms of Regulation 22 I banned those meetings. Later on, there was an increase in the number of meetings, and on 19th October, I issued an Order to the chief constables giving them power, for which I had authority under Regulation 22, to stop meetings if they were of opinion that those meetings would lead to a breach of the peace, rather than that they should have to write to me or telephone to me asking me to exercise the ban myself. Those meetings were not banned because of the political opinions of those who wished to speak. I have no power to ban political meetings and I certainly would not do so because of the political opinions of the speakers; but I found that there was undoubtedly a campaign being started by the Communist party for a certain definite purpose, in order to prevent the men going back and to bring out the safety men, and that there were certain publications issued which I thought were of a serious character, and which I read here a month ago. I came to the conclusion that, at that par-
ticular juncture, when negotiations were going on, when a great many of us were in hopes that the stoppage was coming to a conclusion, that it would be detrimental to the peace of the country if I allowed particular speakers, whose names I gave to the chief constables, to go loose to foment that particular campaign.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean industrial peace or public peace and order?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I mean public peace and order. I came to the conclusion that, if this particular campaign were started, if speeches were made of the character of the documents that I read to this House a few weeks ago, when the men were going back and when safety men were in doubt whether they should come out or not, it would lead to actual breach of the peace. Parliament has given me that responsibility. I may be right or I may be wrong, but, acting on that responsibility, I thought as Home Secretary that those meetings would lead to breach of the peace and therefore I banned them. The hon. Member for North Battersea has complained of my action, but it has at least given his voice a holiday, and, as soon as the Regulations are discontinued, he will be able to go to the country in greater health and vigour and make his speeches.
I would like to deal with the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I hope they will excuse mc for saying that I think there is some little misunderstanding as between the Emergency Proclamation and the Regulations. In the first place, the Emergency Proclamation is the act of His Majesty's Government. When His Majesty's Government uses the Act of 1922, "His Majesty means "His Majesty's Government." The Government are entitled to advise the issue of the Proclamation, and, so far as His Majesty is concerned, he is carrying out, as a constitutional Monarch, the advice given to him by his Ministers. Those Ministers are entitled to say that an Emergency Proclamation may be issued if it appears that any action that has been taken by a body of persons on so extensive a scale as to interfere with the supply and distribution of fuel or means
of locomotion and to deprive the community, or a substantial part of the community of the essentials of life. Within the terms of that, the powers of the Government arise. Let us see what the position was last Saturday week when the Proclamation was issued. I was of opinion on Saturday week last that there was ample ground for continuing the Emergency Proclamation. There was this great stoppage continuing in the coal trade. There were five blast furnaces going in England out of just under 20C in normal times. The production of iron and steel and of a great many other industries was at a standstill, and the people were being deprived of the essentials of life. You may, if you like to get a permit, buy coal at an enormously high price, if you can afford to buy it at 4s. 3d. a cwt., but I am quite convinced—it was the responsibility of the Cabinet as well as mine—that they were perfectly justified, under the terms of Section 1 of the Act of 1920, to declare that an emergency was still in existence "which was likely to deprive," and so forth. When once the emergency is established, Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State not merely dealing with the supply of food or the requisites of life, but for the preservation of peace, and it was under this Section 2 of the Act of 1920 that we made the recommendation by Order of the Privy Council, and by the Act those Regulations are valid only until such time as they have been sanctioned by Parliament, and unless they are sanctioned within seven days of their being laid on the Table, they go by the board.
Then comes the question raised by the hon. Member for South East Leeds about the revocation of these Orders. We all realised on Friday that in all probability within a very limited period of time they would be revoked. Though I am asking the House to-day to sanction Regulations which give me power for one month from last Tuesday, when they were laid on the Table, I am sure they will not be needed for that length of time. They can be revoked under the terms of the Act either by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament or "in like manner as they can be made," and I stated in answer to a question on Monday that I hoped it would be possible to revoke them by order of the
Privy Council. They are created by the Privy Council, they are valid for seven days, and then they have to be authorised by this House. The revocation is in the same way. Revocation by order of the Privy Council becomes instantly effective, but if I do not come to the House within seven days and ask them to confirm the action of the Privy Council in revoking the Regulations, I think in all probability they could be revised at the end of the seven days and endure for the period of the original month from Tuesday last. That is the legal position as I am advised by my legal advisers, and as soon as I am in a position to say that in the view of the Secretary of State, who is responsible for law and order, these Regulations, or any of them, can be revoked, I shall ask the Privy Council to revoke them, and I shall lay the revocation on the Table of the House, and I am certain the House will very gladly and very happily give me the necessary Resolution confirming the revocation. I am sure from the speeches I have heard to-day from hon. Members opposite, and those I have heard a good many times previously, they at any rate will be glad to join with me in seeing the last of them.
A few questions have been raised in the Debate that I ought to deal with. The Hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) made a very grave attack upon myself. He accused me of using my powers under the Regulations for political purposes, and made a very violent onslaught upon me. Really, I am in the knowledge of the House—I am in the knowledge both of my own supporters and of hon. Members opposite—and I will tell the House something that occurred on Friday. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) was making an attack upon me, and he may have noticed that I was signing a paper. It concerned a man who had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment under the Regulations. One of his colleagues told me that the man's wife was undergoing a serious operation, and I at once released him. That is the brutal Home Secretary!

Mr. PALING: I appreciate it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: hon. Member for Huddersfield that violent language to me released four miners.

Mr. TINKER: It only needs us to make another attack upon you, and we shall get others released.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is assuming that the releases are made in consequence of the demands of hon. Members who attack me. It is not so. After all, I have no reason to defend myself on the grounds of ordinary humanity. If I could, I should be only too glad to release all these unfortunate men who are now in prison. I exercise the very great and very responsible powers entrusted to me by the House of Commons, leaning when I can to the side of mercy.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) a question in regard to the misbehaviour of a police inspector. If the statements he makes are borne out by investigation the conduct of the inspector was wrong in every detail. I cannot at the moment believe it possible that he went at 12 o'clock at night waking people up, but if it was done it will receive my very strong censure indeed. I am having inquiries made in regard to the case put to me by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) a few days ago. The next day but one after he saw me in reference to the charges he made against the police of a certain district, Sir Leonard Dunning, one of His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, was on the spot, sent by me to make an investigation. I am; always willing to make any investigation, but at the same time I will ask Members to appreciate their responsibility and not to make accusations against the police unless they are satisfied in their own minds that there is a foundation for them.
The hon. Member for Don Valley further dealt with the question of picketing. I hope it is not necessary to go into that fully at present. I made a full statement about six weeks ago, at the request of the Labour party, and when I received a deputation from the Miners' Federation, when Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith came to see me at the Home Office, they were amply satisfied with the explanation I had given in the House as to the right of peaceful picketing and peaceful persuasion. The hon. Member may always quote my speeches—

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Which I did.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I need not worry about it any more. Then I was asked how long it will be desirable for me to ask the House to keep the Regulations in force. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not finish to-day?"] The position is, I admit, better than it was on Friday, but to-day there are still only about 450,000 men back. Those are concentrated very largely in certain sections of the country. There are other sections where there are only a very few back, and where there is a possibility, at all events, that trouble may occur. The hon. Member for Don Valley has given me very great hope indeed, and if he is right in his figures no one will be more delighted than I shall. He told us that by tomorrow 80 per cent. of the miners will be back at work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Back at work or signed on?"]

Mr. WILLIAMS: I intended to say that by to-morrow 80 per cent. or more of the men will have agreed to resume work, and will resume immediately places are available for them.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said on Friday, and I repeat to-day, that I hope very soon—it may be within a few days, or it may be within a week or two—it will be possible to ask the House to revoke the Regulations. I think I can say now quite definitely that if the hon. Member's statement is even approximately correct, and anything like 80 per cent. are at work or have signed on, and that in effect the trouble in the coalfields is over, I will ask His Majesty to hold a Privy Council on Thursday and I will ask that these penal Regulations may be abolished. It is taking perhaps a little risk on my part, but I think the risk may be well taken. I believe it is the desire of the mining leaders, those Members of the House who have great power and great influence with the mining community, to get rid of these Regulations and to get rid of the possibility of trouble, which is the foundation of the Regulations. Hon. Members may suggest that there is no force in them at all, and no reason for them. I am afraid I cannot accept that position. The figures which have been given from time to time, the numbers of cases that come before me, and the advice and reports I get show that when a grave emergency of this kind is in progress, when there is a violent conflict of opinion
between different sections of the community, when efforts are being made from one side or the other to influence the feelings of the miners and to lead them in one direction or the other, it is desirable that Regulations of this or some similar kind should be in force for the preservation of peace and to preserve the amenities of the country, but as soon as the country gets back to normal we do not want them. They are only needed for abnormal times. Give me back normal times, and I shall be only too delighted to get rid of the Regulations, with all the responsibility, all the labour, all the trouble, all the anxiety they impose upon the Home Secretary.

Mr. PALING: Does the normal time include the seven hours?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is not helping me. I am trying to leave out controversial matters. I will ask him to do his utmost to help towards peace in the mining world. He may have his view about the seven hours.

Mr. LUNN: You cannot have peace with the Eight Hours Act.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman is not helping me. I am explaining my desire to relieve the community of these Regulations as soon as I possibly can. I can only relieve them when there is a return to normal conditions. Hon. Members may say that there are normal conditions to-day, but that there may be smouldering resentment. That, I cannot help. As soon as the men are back at work; as soon as the pits are working; as soon as there is an absence of processions and riots and things of that sort, I shall be only too glad to get rid of the Regulations. If, as the hon. Member for the Don Valley stated, anything like 80 per cent. are back,, or are signed on to work in the course of to-morrow or Wednesday, I shall hope, I cannot put it higher than that, to ask that the Regulations may be revoked on Thursday. Then, I hope there may be, in my time at least, no further need for anything of the sort again.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: rose—

Mr. HARDIE: May I have an answer to the two definite questions which I put to the Home Secretary? I know that I am not a Front Bencher, and perhaps
not of much account to the Home Secretary, but I put two questions to him, and I am going to have an answer. I gave him the name of a colliery owner and what he said, and I want to know why he did not have him arrested for inciting people to shoot. I also asked a question about the taking of evidence for putting into Court a man who sits in this House. I would like an answer.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When the hon. Member can assume that somebody else has intelligence besides himself, and he will put his questions in a proper way, they will be answered, and not until then.

Mr. HARDIE: In my speech I did put them in the ordinary way. I have had this sort of slight from the Home Secretary more than once. He slides off the point to points that do not really matter. I was dealing with essentials. He has not the courage to stand up and defend himself as a man.

Sir H. SLESSER: The Home Secretary has dealt at great length with, and has gone to some extent beyond, the Amendment before the House, and I am sure that you will allow me to follow him perhaps beyond the exact terms of the Amendment. It is evident from these discussions which have gone on month after month that the real trouble is that we on this side look upon the whole method by which order is to be restored, whether by Regulation or not by Regulation, from quite a different standpoint from the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. I think we shall be justified, therefore, in going to the country and saying that one may reasonably expect that whenever the Conservative party is in power, and there is a trade dispute on anything like a large scale, they will employ this method of dealing with the situation, and that if the country desires that disputes shall be dealt with by the law which has sufficed to deal with them for the last 150 years, they will abstain from supporting a Conservative Government in power.
It is almost useless to argue about the technicalities of this particular provision. It is a question of method. We believe, and we have said it over and over again, and I hope this will be the last time that anyone of us need say anything on the subject, that the law which has sufficed to deal with any difficulties which may
arise out of trade disputes ever since the beginning of trade disputes until the year 1920, is the law which should deal with them to-day. We say that without attempting to employ Regulations of this sort, having regard to the experience we have had while the Regulations have been in force, that those laws have been and are now sufficient without using this particular method. This method of dealing with disputes has produced the maximum of friction. It has produced suspicion. It has produced uncertainty, and the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it has produced very disagreeable responsibilities for himself.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that whether he has acted sympathetically and mercifully or not, one of the effects of these Regulations has been to put the most enormous powers into his hands. We dispute altogether that it is right that one man, even the right hon. Gentleman, should be entrusted by the State and by this House with the powers with which the right hon. Gentleman has been entrusted during the past seven months. Whether he has exercised the powers wisely or not—I go so far as to say that there may have been people who would have exercised them more unwisely—he has been placed in the position of dictator. He signs decrees allowing people to escape out of prison, even while he argues in this House. He tells chief constables that they may or may not ban meetings. He controls the whole law of this country in regard to these disputes. That is not due to any native arrogance on his part; it is the nature of the machinery which entrusts the Home Secretary with these enormous and, as we think, unjustifiable powers.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite fully appreciated what was put against him on Friday with regard to his exercise of powers under the Proclamation and the Regulations. He has suggested that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Renn)' and I do not appreciate the difference between the Proclamation and the Regulations. We must be foolish indeed after spending seven months on this matter if we do not appreciate the difference between the Proclamation and the Regulations. I would be the first to agree, if we did confuse the two. We have however
distinguished very closely between the Proclamation and the Regulations. We have maintained, and we maintain now, that a Proclamation may only be made when it appears that the conditions are such that it is necessary for the preservation of the peace under conditions when the life of the community is imperilled. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to say what were the conditions which imperil the life of the community. We have had an answer to-day. He says that a certain number of miners are still not at work. There are, he said, still a number of blast furnaces not at work. He really states that at the present moment there is no actual menace to the life of the community: none whatever.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and learned Member is confusing the Regulations and the Proclamation now.

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman may say that I am confusing the matter, but I am not confusing it. I am talking of the Proclamation. Let us take last Saturday week. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of Saturday week. He said that on Saturday week a number of miners were out of work and a certain number of blast furnaces were out of condition. The Proclamation contemplates a condition of affairs where the life of the community itself is in peril. How can he say to-day that the life of the community is in peril when we have imported coal, when we have foodstuffs, and when our normal processes are going on. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith, who is the only Liberal who has taken any special part in these Debates.

Sir W. MITCHELL: He is the only Liberal here.

Sir H. SLESSER: He is not only the only one here, but is the only one in England.

Captain BENN: I sit for a Scottish constituency.

Sir H. SLESSER: What the hon. and gallant Member has said, and what we have said, is that if you are so to strain an Act which was passed for real perils and emergency, that whenever there is a trade dispute on anything like a large scale, immediately you are to issue a Proclamation and to put Regulations of
this sort into action, we have no guarantee that the ordinary processes of law will not be interrupted nearly every year on some pretext or other. We have this Proclamation because there are 300,000 miners out of work. There have been engineering lock-outs, railway disputes and endless disputes, unfortunately, going on for many years, and if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his view, on everyone of those occasions a Proclamation of this kind might have been made, because the peril to the community was no less then than to-day. If this arbitrary discretion is to be allowed, the Government can say at any time, "There are a certain number of people out of work, therefore we will issue a Proclamation." Surely, the responsibility rests upon the Government to look round and try to satisfy themselves that, in fact, the life of the community is in peril. I have waited to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. I think he said two weeks ago, when this Proclamation was issued, that the life of the community was in peril, but he knows that it was not.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but he is a lawyer and he ought to put the matter clearly. There is' nothing about "the life of the community being imperilled" in the Act.

Mr. HARDIE: I gave you a quotation, but you took no notice of it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, provision is made for dealing with any action taken or immediately threatened which is calculated
to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life.

Sir H. SLESSER: I will repeat the words quoted by the right hon. Gentleman:—
to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life.
To say that the life of the community is not imperilled under those conditions is too subtle a distinction for a lawyer. The question which I ask is, a fortnight ago, could the right hon. Gentleman say that action was being taken which was
depriving the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

Sir H. SLESSER: If the right hon. Gentleman means that, in so far as the miners were getting no wages, they could not have the essentials of life, I agree. As a matter of fact, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman, with the applause of the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Mitchell), who so frequently interrupts, that coal was pouring into the country; that the miners were not seriously discomposing the country; that we were getting on very nicely. In those circumstances, how could it be said—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It appears to me that the hon. and learned Member is discussing the whole of the Main Question over again. The Amendment is to leave out Regulations 21 and 22.

Sir H. SLESSER: When I started replying to the Home Secretary, I said that he had gone very considerably beyond the Amendment, and had dealt with the justification for making the Proclamation. I said that I hoped you would allow me the same latitude as the Home Secretary. I am dealing with precisely the same point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Home Secretary replied to some questions put to him. We cannot go on replying to one another, or we shall get far beyond the limits of Debate.

Sir H. SLESSER: I have made my point, and I am quite content-to pass to the Amendment. My next point, the point which arises immediately out of the Amendment, is equally important, and it concerns the Regulations which we now propose to pass. They are Regulations which alter the law of the laud, which create a new offence. They create the offence of disaffection, which does not exist at Common Law, which has been twisted and interpreted in such a way as to make illegal things which have been decided at Common Law to be legal. They have done away with trial by jury and generally altered the structure of the Common Law. The point I put to the Home Secretary is this. The Proclamation says:
Those Regulations may confer or impose on a Secretary of State or other Govern-
ment Department, or any other persons in His Majesty's Service or acting on His Majesty's behalf, such powers and duties as His Majesty may deem necessary for the preservation of the peace.
I say that the powers and duties imposed on His Majesty's servants cannot extend to altering the structure of the law. The right hon. Gentleman may ban meetings and order the police about, but surely he cannot create new offences under the law or do away with the right of trial by jury. The right hon. Gentleman has made Regulations under the Proclamation whereas the Act applies to much narrower purposes, and if he makes the Regulations again under a Proclamation—and as long as we have a Conservative Government in power we shall always have to look for them—I hope he will confine his powers to those given him under the Act itself. That point the right hon. Gentleman has not met. The powers which are conferred upon him and other Ministers are executive and not judicial, and under this Regulation he has taken judicial powers which we seek to exclude by the Amendment.
Finally, on the question of banned meetings. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason why he was going to ban certain meetings was that because the Communists were to start a campaign in order to bring out the safety men and induce men to leave the pits. What are the powers conferred on the right hon. Gentleman under the Regulations? We must be exact about these extraordinary powers. The Regulation says:
Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting or procession will conduce to a breach of the peace and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police, or will promote disaffection.
Which of these two, I ask, covers the ease of meetings to bring out the safety men? It may be that the bringing out of the safety men is a breach of contract, it depends on the advice, but if you were to advise the safety men to give a week's notice and come out at the end of the week it would not be illegal. But that in itself does not conduce to a breach of the peace. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there would have been such a strong feeling against the safety men coming out that it would have led to a breach of the peace? Nothing of the kind. What he means is that it
would have been a deplorable thing. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say, regardless of the area, that the mere holding of meetings to persuade the safety men to come out would in itself tend to procure a breach of the peace. What is in his mind is that it is highly undesirable the safety men should come out—I am not arguing that point at the moment. The question is, does it come under this Regulation? The ban of a meeting is for a specific purpose—to stop a meeting which is going to cause a row; but the bringing out of the safety men is not included in that.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: Is it not within the recollection of the hon. and learned Member that complaints were made not long ago about a breach of the peace which would ensue in consequence of the bringing out of the safety men? The question arose when certain safety men were called out; some came out and some did not, and a breach of the peace was caused.

Sir H. SLESSER: I am much obliged for the interruption, because it enables me to make my point clear. If the Home Secretary had information that in a specific district there was a proposal to call out the safety men, or any other body of men, and that in that place a meeting was likely to produce disorder and a breach of the peace I do not complain. What I complain of is that without regard to any particular place the Home Secretary says that wherever a meeting is being held to persuade the safety men not to work it must necessarily conduce to a breach of the peace, and he issues a general ban on all meetings for that purpose.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the hon. and learned Member will allow me to interrupt him. I did not say all meetings to bring out the safety men. There was a particular campaign by a particular section of the community, the Communists, to be conducted in accordance with the recommendations laid down in their literature, which, in my view, would have inevitably led to disorder.

Sir H. SL ESSER: The Home Secretary can only expect me to deal with the reasons he gave at the time. He now says that it was because of a campaign by the Communist party to bring out the safety men, and I understand that this
was related to some general literature, which must have led to a breach of the peace. That is not quite the same thing. My point is this—and as this is probably the last occasion we may have of dealing with these things I am anxious that in the future these Regulations shall be administered with a great deal more exactness than they have in the past—this Regulation contemplates the prohibition of a particular meeting in a particular area having regard to all the circumstances of the case as being likely to conduce to a breach of the peace. The consideration as to whether a particular meeting would or would not have so resulted was not in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He speaks generally, and in that way he strains the Regulations. The withdrawal of the safety men by itself is not likely to conduce to a breach of the peace. Had they gone around saying, "Let us break shop windows or hit someone on the head," he would have had a perfect case, but to say that the proposal to withdraw this particular class of men is in itself likely to produce a breach of the peace is contrary to the Act itself, which says that there is nothing to prevent a man or any body of persons trying to persuade other men to take part in a strike. The Act says that you can appeal to a particular class of persons to come out on strike. And this particular persuasion, directed to the safety men, was simply a persuasion to a number of persons to come out on strike.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Yes, come out on strike, and produce what you admit to be a great calamity.

Sir H. SLESSER: That is the very point. I am on. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) has truly interpreted the mind of the Home Secretary. It is because the Home Secretary thought it would be a great calamity that these meetings were stopped. The Act expressly says that you may persuade men to come out on strike. That may be a calamity, that is not the point.

Sir H. CRAIK: You admitted it to be a calamity.

Sir H. SLESSER: It is so evident. If everybody ceases his labour, it is a calamity.

Sir H. CRAIK: You admitted that if they had taken away the safety men it would have been, itself, a great calamity.

Sir H. SLESSER: I am sure I have not made myself quite clear to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. The Regulation says that the Home Secretary may stop a meeting if it is calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. A calamity and a breach of the peace are not the same thing. You may say that all breaches of the peace are a calamity, but there are many calamities which are not breaches of the peace. Pestilence and sudden death are calamities, but they are not breaches of the peace.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: The Labour party!

Sir H. SLESSER: The Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal party, possibly all politicians, may be calamities, but they are not necessarily breaches of the peace. It is because the Home Secretary has been moved by the consideration of a calamity that these meetings have been banned.

Mr. GROTRIAN: May I ask the hon. and learned Member one question? Would not the calling out of the safety men tend to deprive the nation of the essentials of life under the Proclamation, and under the Regulation tend to prevent the distribution of food, water, fuel and light?

Sir H. SLESSER: If the hon. and learned Member were right it would be perfectly irrelevant to the point I am now discussing. We are not discussing whether the act would or would not interfere with the essentials of life. We are discussing Regulation 22, which deals with the power of prohibiting meetings which would conduce to a breach of the peace or promote disaffection, and if the hon. and learned Member will read the Regulation he, will find that his interpolation is irrelevant. Let me turn to one or two of the questions referred to by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), to which he did not get a satisfactory reply.

Mr. HARDIE: No answer at all.

Sir H. SLESSER: The hon. Member drew attention to speeches made by other persons which were just as clearly
calculated to promote disaffection as anything which any miner has said in this dispute. It is a very unfortunate thing, but it is one of the results of these Regulations, that this suspicion must inevitably arise. The Home Secretary may take it from me that a large number of people during this dispute have expressed to me frequently in public places, in railway carriages and the like, the opinion that certain members of the Miners' Federation, certain of the miners' leaders, ought to be shot. That is a most usual phrase coming from a number of intemperate persons. In these cases nothing has happened, not a single person has ever been prosecuted under these Regulations for saying that some of the miners' leaders ought to be shot. Yet it must be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that some people have said these foolish things all over the country. There was the case of Lord Hunsdon, who said the miners should be treated like the Germans, or some foolish speech to this effect at a City banquet, Nothing was done. There was the case which the hon. Member for Springburn mentioned, to which no reply was given, and the case mentioned by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), and we have thousands of cases of speeches made by persons favouring the coalowners or the Government, all of them calculated in the highest degree to promote disaffection, yet not one single prosecution during the whole of this dispute has taken place.
6.0 P.M.
We do not want these people prosecuted. We think the whole thing is a mistake. Foolish words uttered in moments of excitement are not worth the consideration of the State or the law, but we do ask that when such laws as these are to be administered they should be equitably and evenly administered. One of the unfortunate results of this state of martial law is that very large numbers of people in this country, who favour neither mine owners nor the miners, have come to the conclusion that certain classes of the community can express opinions and say what they like, whereas other people if they do the same are arrested. That is to bring the law into contempt. It is the inevitable result of having this set of arbitrary laws. Believe me, Sir, I have not intervened in the Debate for the sake of scoring points.
It is my real belief that all this special extra law is a profound mistake. It is a mistake, and it jeopardises the very things that the Home Secretary says he has at heart, namely, respect for the law and the security of the realm. I believe that the Regulations have converted thousands of people to Labour. If that were the only thing to be considered, I would like the Regulations to go on indefinitely, for I believe that we have received more support because of the arbitrary banning of meetings that we should have had if the meetings had been held. Looking at the question from the broad point of view, I hope that if the circumstance comes again and the right hon. Gentleman has the power, he will think many times before he embarks again on this martial law, these unnatural laws, which were considered unnecessary for hundreds of years and which we profoundly believe are unnecessary to-day.

Captain BENN: The Conservative party is moulded in so many respects on the Soviet Government of Moscow, that I was not in the least surprised to hear the Home Secretary defend this repression of liberty in almost the identical terms in which the Soviet Government defend the repression of liberty in Russia—they do not want to do it, but they have to do it in the interests of the people who are to be governed. Those were the reasons of the Home Secretary to-day. I -do not think that his position is made any stronger by the advertising of little acts of mercy which otherwise would have escaped notice. One of the most objectionable and most questionable lines of defence advanced to-day is that, when so many men are back to work the Home Secretary is prepared to withdraw the Regulations. No doubt he can find an ingenious meaning for those words, but many people will think that the Government are holding this threat over the heads of the men and using it as a means of forcing the men back to work, in complete harmony with their policy throughout, which has always been to bring what pressure they can on the side of those who are opposing the men. The right hon. Gentleman repeated said in effect: "Show me 800,000 men, or 80 per cent., back at work, and I will withdraw the Regulations." That is a very dangerous argument, because
the men will say, "Yes, unless we go back to work we are to be deprived of our rights as citizens."
We said on Friday that these Regulations, Nos. 21 and 22, appeared to us to be illegal. It is not surprising that the Government should do 'anything illegal; it would not be the first time. Some hon. Members seem to think that the charge of illegality is an absurd charge for a private Member to make. It is not more than two years since the learned Attorney-General and the then Home Secretary persisted, in the face of opposition and criticism, in doing that which turned out to be illegal and which laid on the Exchequer a very considerable amount which the taxpayers had to find in order to pay for the misdeeds of the Government of the day. There is nothing necessarily improper in this charge against the Government. It is evident that the Home Secretary, during the week-end, has been advised that he made a mistake on Friday last. This Act is an Act that can only be operated—I would remind the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), not if it "tends to deprive" but—if a substantial portion of the population is deprived of the necessities of life. That is, calculated to deprive of the essentials of life, not "tending to deprive" of some of the essentials of life. The right hon. Gentleman to-day went completely back on his defence of Friday last. On Friday he appeared to be under the impression that he could issue the Proclamation if in his judgment the peace was affected. To-day he has seen that it would be wise to make a totally new defence. Let me quote what he said in defence of the Proclamation. I asked him:
Do the right hon. Gentleman's advisers allege that the state of affairs is so serious that the essentials of life are at stake?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
No …. I say at once that it is purely as a matter of precaution that I am asking for the continuance of these Regulations, in order that there may be no difficulty whatever about preserving the peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1926; cols. 716 and 717; Vol. 200.]
The right hon. Gentleman closed his speech with these words:
That is the sole object, to maintain the peace of the country during the next few weeks.… It is solely a matter of pre-
caution in order that there should be, at the conclusion of this long-drawn-out dispute, no real breads of the peace, that I am asking the House to pass these Regulations."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1926; col. 720, Vol. 200.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said at the beginning to-day that there seemed to be confusion on the other side between the Proclamation and the Regulations. When the Government are of opinion that the essentials of life are in danger, that the right to the Proclamation arises. After that Regulations cant be made for he preservation of the peace.

Captain BENN: But that is a minor point before I come to the major point. Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, says:
Where a Proclamation of emergency has been made, and so long as the Proclamation is in force, it shall he lawful for His Majesty in Council, by Order, to make Regulations for securing the essentials of life.…
The maintenance of the peace is merely an ancillary purpose. Let me quote again the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my question on Friday last. I asked the Home Secretary whet-her his advisers alleged that the state of affairs was so serious that the essentials of life were at stake, and the right hon. Gentleman answered, "No."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite fair. He has just said that, under Section 2, the Regulations should be made for securing the essentials of life and that the preservation of the peace is ancillary to it. It is quite the reverse. Section 2 also says that the Secretary of State or any other persons acting on His Majesty's behalf are to have conferred and imposed on them
such powers and duties as His Majesty may deem necessary for the preservation of the peace….
The preservation of the peace comes first: it is not ancillary.

Captain BENN: I am not quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman is reading. I will read Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act again. It says:
Where a Proclamation of emergency has been made …. it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council, by Order, to make Regulations for securing the essentials of life to the community.
That is the purpose. The Section goes on:
And those Regulations may confer or impose on a Secretary of State … powers and ditties …. for the preservation of peace.
The preservation of the peace an ancillary purpose to the purpose of maintaining the essentials of life. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that on that point I have the better of the argument. Let us take a second point, When the right hon. Gentleman was asked specifically, "Do your advisers or you allege that the essentials of life are at stake?" he replied "No," and yet, unless he is of that opinion, he has no right to advise the issue of a Proclamation. It is clear that this argument has impressed itself on the Home Secretary during the week-end, and that someone has told him that it is necessary to make a case within the terms of the Statute. That is what he has attempted to do this afternoon. He does not say now and, will not say, that at this moment the essentials of life are being put in jeopardy. He says, "Ten days ago the essentials of life were in jeopardy." Will he say that now? If, for example, we were acting de novo, would he come down to-day and say, "I am sorry to tell you that something has happened which has put into jeopardy the essentials of life for a substantial portion of the community, and I ask you to give me powers to act." He could not do it; no reasonable' man could do it. Therefore, the Home Secretary falls back on something relating to ten days ago. Yes, but what justification can there be for moving now a Resolution continuing Regulations which would lapse to-night unless he is prepared to say to-day at this moment that the state of affairs is such as to justify him in declaring that the essentials of life are in jeopardy?
The Regulations ought to lapse unless the right hon. Gentleman can say that. Otherwise it is quite clear that these Emergency Regulations are going to pass into a regular part of our State machinery. Personally, I should very much regret it. The hon. and learned Member for South West Hull seems to be of opinion that the Act can properly be invoked if there is something done which "tends to deprive" the community of the essentials of life, which is calculated
to deprive the community. Let, us see where that lands us. Suppose there is a dispute in any of the major industries. Suppose that the engineers, the railwaymen or the dock labourers were engaged in a dispute. In the London Docks the other day there was a sudden dispute. It was adjusted by the parties concerned. If the Act were read to mean that anything which "tended to deprive" the community of the essentials of life justified these Regulations, that hold-up in the London Docks would be an ample ground for declaring an emergency. If hon. Gentlemen opposite take such a light view of a solemn Act—it is a solemn Act—they are putting into the hands of the Executive a power which may be used by a Conservative Government against the workers in an industrial dispute, and may be used by a Socialist Government to deal in a very serious way with what are called the rights of property. I think that the wisest course for the Home Secretary to have taken would have been simply to announce that he did not intend to move his Resolution. If he does intend to move it, the best thing he can do is to eliminate all reference to objectionable and superfluous powers.

Mr. STEPHEN: I join in the protest against the action of the Home Secretary in connection with these Regulations. On previous occasions I have taken the opportunity of putting before the House some points concerning the administration of these particular Regulations, and I have not been at all satisfied with the answers given to me by the Home Secretary. Again, I desire to raise the question of the right hon. Gentleman's action, especially in regard to the banning of meetings, for which he himself was responsible. On 18th November, when I raised this matter, the Home Secretary in reply admitted that the action he had taken in connection with the banning of meetings was something quite apart from the possibility of disorder, disaffection or a breach of the peace. He pointed out that serious negotiations were then taking place and said that to his mind those negotiations were likely to be prejudiced by the action of members of the Communist party. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he used these emergency powers and these Regulations in a manner which is contrary to the law on the matter. These
Regulations are always subject to the following proviso:
Provided also that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike.
On his own confession the Home Secretary has wiped out that proviso. I feel very strongly on this point, because he pointed out in his speech that he was doing it in order to protect members of the. Labour party. I do not object to the Home Secretary taking upon himself the position of the patron saint of the Tory party and setting up as a sort of demigod in Primrose League gatherings. But I think it is going too far when the Home Secretary not only arrogates to himself the position of patron saint to the Tory party but also seeks to arrogate to himself the position of patron saint of the Labour party. Here are his words:
The language they"—
the members of the Communist party—
used was not against myself but against the leaders of the Labour party, whom they threatened and accused of selling the interests of the miners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1926; col. 2085, Vol. 199.]
If the Communists say that about the members of the Labour party it is no reason why the Home Secretary should defy an Act of Parliament and take action which is contrary to an Act of Parliament. As a member of the Labour party I register my emphatic protest against the right hon. Gentleman's interference, There is another case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) put a question last week regarding the banning of a meeting which was to have been addressed by Mr. Pollitt. Again, it was the fussy interference of this fussy Home Secretary which led to the banning of this meeting. Now, we are not in the least thankful for the Home Secretary's action, and we do not believe he is taking that action in the interests of the Labour party. In fact, our main objection to these Regulations is that the Government and the Home Secretary have endeavoured to make them purely and simply instruments of the Tory party in order to help the owners.
When I last addressed the House on this subject I definitely asked the Home Secretary to use his influence with the Government to dispel the idea that is in the minds of so many of us, that the Conservative party funds are going to be greatly advantaged because of the action of the Government in the way they have used these Regulations. A great deal has been said about the necessity for altering the law relating to the rights of trade unions. I wonder at the suggestion. When these Regulations are being used in this fashion by the Government, I cannot see the need for any such legislation. A great deal is also said about the money which comes to the. Labour party from the trade unions. At any rate, the details of the funds of the Labour party are published and anyone can see them. I desire again to challenge the Government definitely on this point. I ask them to allow the details of the Tory party's funds to be made public and to show the amount of contributions made by the mineowners to the Conservative party funds because of the partial administration of the law and the partial administration of these Regulations by the Home Office. I leave the Conservative party with their patron saint. I have no objection to the Conservative party having a "Saint Hicks" in their calendar, but I assure the Government there is going to be no "Saint Jix" in the Labour party calendar because of the protection the right hon. Gentleman is fussily giving to speakers of the Labour party. We do not want his assistance. We do not need it in any way and we leave him to continue his work on behalf of the coalowners and his actions against the interests of the working class.

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. The matter has often been raised in this House as to the cost of putting questions on the Paper. I understand each question put down costs a guinea. I put down two questions today. I put down many, but there are two to which I desire an answer. They are addressed to the Home Secretary, and I suggest that in the interests of economy the right hon. Gentleman should answer them now. One has been referred to already in the course of this discussion from the Government Front Bench, and I think the other is known to the right. hon. Gen-
tleman. If he does not propose to answer them now, I shall be compelled to put the House to the expense of placing these questions on the Paper.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 86: Noes, 211.

Division No. 505.]
AYES.
[6.24 p.m.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Paling, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Purcell, A. A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H,


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


sondfield, Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Or. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Connolly, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Day, Colonel Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.


Dunnico, H.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Fenby, T. D.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valiey)


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.



Graham. Rt. Hon, Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. B. Smith.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grant, Sir J. A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Colfox, Major William Phillips
Grotrian, H. Brent


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Atkinson, C.
Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hammersley, S. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hanbury, C.


Balniel, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davidson,J.(Hertl'd, Hemel Hemnst'd)
Haslam, Henry C.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hawke, John Anthony


Bennett, A. J.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Berry, Sir George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington. S.)
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Boothby, R. i. G.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Drewe, C.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hills, Major John Walter


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive
Ellis, R. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)


Briggs, J. Harold
Elveden, viscount
Hohler, Str Gerald Fitzroy


Brittain, Sir Harry
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G,
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fielden, E. B.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Finburgh, S.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Forrest, W.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Foster, Sir Harry s.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Campbell, E. T.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cassels, J. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jephcott, A. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gates, Percy
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gibbs, Cot. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Goff, Sir Park
Knox, Sir Alfred


Christie, J. A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Perring. Sir William George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lueas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wlifrid


Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


MacIntyre, Ian
Preston, William
Tinne, J. A.


McLean, Major A.
Ramsden, E.
Titchlield, Major the Marguess of


Macmillan, Captain H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ranald John
Remer, J. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Macquisten, F. A.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Malone, Major P. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margesson, Captain D.
Rye, F. G.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Withers, John James


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (streatham)
Savery, S. S.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Murchison, C. K.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Thomson.


Penny, Frederick George
Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in line 2, after "1926," to insert the words "other than Regulation 33."
I did not expect to have occasion to move this Amendment to-day, because I thought the Home Secretary would withdraw the Regulations altogether. I can emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that to all intents and purposes the lock-out is over, and, so far as our knowledge goes, all the men will be signed on by the end of thus week. We expected with that knowledge that there would be no need for the continuance of these Regulations. Anyone reading Regulation 33 will see that it gives very wide powers indeed to a police constable, for it says, in part:
Any police constable may arrest without warrant any person who so acts as to endanger the public safety or who is guilty or is suspected of being guilty of an offence against these Regulations.
The words about being "suspected of being guilty" give a very wide scope of action to a police constable. Then, in Regulation 21, there is something about a person suspected of doing something calculated to lead to disaffection among the civilian population, and anyone can see that very wide grounds are given for any constable to act upon. Disaffection among the civilian population covers a very wide area, and we hope the Home Secretary, whatever he may do with the other Regulations, will not allow this
particular Regulation to be continued any longer. In view of what is happening, we are expecting to-night that this particular Regulation will be struck out.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I, too, was hoping that these Regulations would have been withdrawn altogether, as there is no reason why they should be continued. The Home Secretary made an offer in regard to 80 per cent. of the men being signed on tomorrow, I think it was, but I do not know that he ought to be guided, by the number signing on. The possibility is that a large number of men may not be signed on for some time. There might be a thousand men working, who might not all be signed on the first day, and it might be months before all would be able to get to their places. They may sign them on at once, or they may sign them on as they take them on. I was talking the other day to a general manager, who said that in one district that I know well, where two or three hundred men are usually working, he would only require 12 men for a considerable time.
As far as I can see the dispute is over. The only place where there is any doubt is South Wales, where they are taking a ballot to-day, but there is no doubt that there as well starvation has done its work so completely that there is nothing to do but accept the terms that are being
imposed on the men. District negotiations are a farce. There are no negotiations. The owners put down what they want, and the men may take it or leave it, and the owners know that we are bound to take their terms. I think the Home Secretary ought to remember that many of these districts have already called off the dispute. The whole of the Midlands, Lancashire, Scotland, Yorkshire, I believe, and Northumberland, and practically the whole country, have called off the dispute so that there is no reason for continuing these Regulations. I do not know whether I shall be in order in discussing the question of the safety men.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not come under Regulation 33.

Mr. EDWARDS: Then I will leave that question, but there is a big fuss about the safety men, and I know of colliery companies that have stopped them and told them their services were not required any longer, and that was not such a serious matter as some people seem to think. This Regulation deals with the police and gives them far too great powers. The police are like other people. They magnify their office, and they are like some Magistrates, who believe they were put on the bench in order to imprison and fine people. Some police are like that, and they take advantage of these Regulations, for which reason I should like to see the Regulations withdrawn. There were two cases in my own constituency, and I may say that we have had no riots there at all. We have been wonderfully favoured there, and in the district to which I particularly belong there is not a single man in a single pit working there at present, yet we have had no trouble whatever. In one place there were police drafted into the district, in another part of the constituency, where a few men were working. These police came out of the Conservative Club at Phillipstown, New Tredegar, on the 13th October. They were protecting men there, and I am told in a letter that they came from there half drunk very often, and that is a very serious charge to make against the police. Anyway, they came out one night from this Conservative Club and met two young men going home. One of them asked where they were going, and called them "B—swine," and
other filthy, dirty language. They kicked one of these men on the leg, opening an old wound for which he had been under treatment for three months, and it was reported to the superintendent the same night, as soon as it happened.
In another case the police were on duty, and they were going by the food canteen of the workmen, and they had a man there stationed by night as watchman. There were other men who had been to a trades council meeting some distance away, half a mile or so. They were talking to this watchman by the canteen, and the police came there, and the others walked on. There was no trouble, and no crowd, and they told this man he must clear off, and if he did not he would want the doctor very shortly. Immediately after saying that, they struck him on the head with a baton, all without any provocation and without any crowd about at all, and that, I claim, is the result of these Regulations. Where the police. are given liberties, they magnify those liberties. These Regulations ought to be withdrawn, and, as far as I can see, there is no reason whatever why they should be kept on any longer. To all intents and purposes, the stoppage is now ended, and there is no reason why these Regulations should not be discontinued.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): We have had two very short speeches in connection with this Regulation, but in the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwelty (Mr. C. Edwards), he has made a very serious charge. He said that he had been told that the police were coming out of a Conservative club half drunk. That is a very serious charge, and it is also a very vague charge. I wonder whether he has reported that particular case to the Home Secretary and given him the opportunity of carrying out a careful investigation.

Mr. EDWARDS: May I explain that I have been for two or three days trying to get questions through the Clerks at the Table, but I have failed, on this very point, so that I have not put it to the Home Secretary.

Captain HACKING: There is another form of putting questions to the Home Secretary, in addition to going through the Clerks at the Table. The House knows that the Home Secretary is only too anxious to investigate all these
charges against the police, but when there is no mention of the name of the place, in the discussion we have had this afternoon, it is impossible to carry out an investigation.

Mr. EDWARDS: I have given the name, the Conservative club at Phillipstown, New Tredegar, Monmouthshire.

Captain HACKING: I apologise. I was looking at another matter when the hon. Member gave the name of the place. but I will see that the Home Secretary is notified, and an investigation will at once be carried out, because these charges, unless they can be substantiated, do a great deal of harm, and it is not fair on the police. I, Personally, should be very glad if hon. Members would bring these cases to the notice of the Home Secretary before they make a charge in the House. It then gives an opportunity for a defence being made, and it gives us the opportunity of satisfying the hon. Member who makes the charge. Everyone admits that on the whole the police have carried out their difficult duties, sometimes under very great provocation, with great moderation.

Mr. EDWARDS: And sometimes with no discretion whatsoever.

Captain HACKING: Of course, there are instances when sufficient discretion may not have been used, but when we take into consideration the provocation under which on many occasions the police have to work, we must, I think, admit that they have carried out their duties with moderation, and it is not fair that these insinuations should be made on hearsay. It is far better that we at the Home Office, at any rate, should have the opportunity of making careful investigation before these charges are flung right and left. We have had many discussions on Regulation 33 in connection with the great powers that are given to the police. It is true that under this Regulation the police have powers to arrest without warrant and to enter premises suspected of being used for purposes endangering the public safety, but, in connection with sub-section (2) of the Regulation, there is a proviso which it is well to point out to the House, namely, that the Secretary of State has not the power to delegate his authority in connection with the raiding
of the premises of a registered newspaper. That is a protection which is meted out perfectly impartially, not only to the "Morning Post," but also to the "Daily Herald," so that I think the House will be quite satisfied that there has been no degree of favour shown in that connection.
I do not know whether hon. Members realise, although they have been told very frequently, that there are already very great powers in connection with arrest without warrant, irrespective of this particular Regulation. The hon. and learned Member the late Solicitor-General, of course, knows those powers better than most Members of the House. I need only reiterate that a private person, and not only a police constable, may arrest, without warrant under the ordinary law, a person in order to prevent the perpetration of a felony about to be committed; a person attempting to commit a felony; a person found committing certain misdemeanours, a person found committing any indictable or summary offence under the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, against his property. Any other person, if authorised by the owner, can also arrest. A private person. may also arrest a person committing an indictable offence at night; a person taking part in an actual breach of the peace; or a person reasonably suspected of having committed a felony, provided that a felony has been committed. In addition to those powers of arrest without. warrant, a constable has certain other powers of arrest without warrant, but those powers are mainly conferred by Statute. He may arrest a person reasonably suspected of having committed a felony, whether or not a felony has actually been committed, or he may arrest a. person loitering at night, and suspected of being about to commit a felony against the Larceny Malicious Damage or Offences against the Person Acts, and there are many other powers.
But the fact that a man is arrested without warrant, does not mean that his case is decided by the police. That is a matter which is constantly overlooked by hon. Members opposite. It does not mean that the right of trial is denied. It means that the person concerned goes before a magistrate, and is tried in the ordinary way. There he has a lawyer, and is either found guilty, or the case is
not proved. This Regulation does nothing more than what is taking place often under present Acts of Parliament, and under the Common Law which at present exists. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is going to jump up immediately, and ask: "If there are all these powers under the Common Law, why bother about these Regulations?" I anticipate that part of his speech, because I hope it will save the time of the House. The answer to it is that the Home Secretary does not consider he has sufficient powers under the present Common Law. As has been said by my right hon. Friend this after noon, he hopes that very shortly he will be able to revoke a great number of the Regulations—

Captain BENN: Can the hon and gallant Gentleman tell us on how many occasion* paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of this Regulation 33 have actually been used?

Captain HACKING: No; we have no record, I think, of the number of arrests which have been made without warrant, but I do not think paragraph (2) has been taken advantage of in connection with the raiding of a newspaper office. As I have said, the Home Secretary hopes very shortly to be able to revoke a great number of the Regulations, and we all hope and believe that this Regulation will not be one of the last to go.

Sir H. SLESSER: I have listened with great interest, and, I may say, admiration to the learning of the hon. and gallant Member on the question of warrants. But there is one thing he has not told us, which, I think, we should like to know, and that is, what are the circum tances which exist at the present time to justify the House continuing Regulation 33? Some look upon these Regulations in this way: Here is a body of Regulations, and the burden is upon those who wish to remove any particular Regulation to show that that particular Regulation is not necessary. I do not hook on the matter in that way at all. I look upon all these Regulations as a variation of the Common Law, and that it is incumbent upon the Government to show why to-day, when this coal stoppage is practically over, when there is perfect peace prevailing in the whole Realm, it
is necessary to give a police constable the power to
arrest without warrant any person who so acts as to endanger the public safety.
Or why he should be given the power to:
enter, if need be by force, any premises or place suspected of having been, or being, used for any purpose endangering the public safety,
or why power should be given to him to seize and detain vehicles, and search their contents? Not a single word has been said by the hon. and gallant Member to suggest that anybody wishes to convey clandestinely anything dangerous in a vehicle, or print anything in a newspaper peculiarly inflammatory. Therefore, we are entitled to ask, what is the necessity to-day for these Regulations? The hon. and gallant Member says there are so many instances in which persons may be arrested without warrant, so why not have a few more? Then we know what we are talking about. The argument may be used that the warrant is an obsolete kind of protection for the subject. Why not say generally that you can arrest without warrant anybody who acts contrary to the public safety? That is an argument I would strenuously oppose. To-day the normal position is that a person is entitled to see the warrant before arrest, and that from time to time, in a few cases, common law, but far more frequently statute law, has put in the hands of the police, and very occasioNally in. the hands of private people, the power to arrest without. warrant But this Regulation practically means that a policeman is given a free hand to arrest anyone he likes.
The hon. and gallant Member said that we on this side of the House did not take sufficient cognisance of the fact that to arrest a person without warrant is not the same thing as to convict. I quite agree, and I cannot believe anyone would be so foolish as to think it was. This is what, I think, has been in the minds of hon. Members behind me. Although it may not be the same thing as conviction, it may do an enormous amount of harm to a man, particularly in a small community, if he be arrested without a warrant. People see him suddenly arrested in the street; his reputation is very largely destroyed, and many people, unfortunately, will say if a man be acquitted after trial, "There must
be something in it, or he would not have got into the hands of the police." I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that to arrest a man at all, unless absolutely necessary and proper, is a most dangerous thing to do.
Therefore, what we are asking is that the ordinary protection of the warrant shall continue, that whatever need there may be to deal with persons who persuade others not to work, the ordinary machinery of the warrant, as far as the law is concerned, is absolutely adequate. I fear the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not pay much attention to what I am saying, yet he has so far learnt the lesson which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith has been teaching him so many months, that he is able to repeat almost spontaneously that the hon. Member would say, "Why interfere with the Common Law?" It has taken eight months of solid repetition, and even now we have had no answer to it. We congratulate the Under-Secretary on having learnt his lesson, but it has been rather tiresome. It has been like teaching children the irregular verbs in Latin. But at last we have done it, and now that he has learnt it, we hope in future he will rely on the Common Law, which, we submit, is quite sufficient to deal with this matter.

Mr. WHITELEY: I do not think one logical reason has been given from the Government Bench why this particular Regulation should be continued. I remember the Home Secretary saying at one time that it was essential to continue Regulation 33, because it was part of the code. Being part of the code, he was advised that it ought to be kept intact, although it was not used. Now we have the Under-Secretary telling us we have to keep in mind that private persons have a good deal of power of arrest without warrant. I want to draw his attention to the fact that the illustrations he has given us to-night, under the ordinary law, are quite different from this particular Regulation. He went on to say that, even if a man be arrested by a private person without warrant or by the police, the evidence of the police may not convict the man. But the point is, that the evidence of the police is much
stronger than the evidence of any outsider, and it is very often upheld in the Courts of this country.
The police officer under this Regulation is given unlimited power. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has made arrangements that in future policemen are to undergo a course of thought-reading, because this Regulation gives a policemen power in the street, if he thinks a person is thinking About something, to arrest that person without warrant. The man may be thinking of something that might happen 20 years hence, but this particular Regulation gives the village policemen power to arrest on the least pretext. We say that as it is the Home Secretary's only argument that it forms part of a code, and that he is expecting to be able to withdraw the whole of these Regulations, and seeing that it has not had to be put into operation, because our people have not been thinking along the lines the Tory Government thought they would be during this particular crisis, it would be a good thing if the Government could withdraw this Regulation and, at least, let the people in the country see that they are sincere in some respects.

Mr. PALING: It was amazing to me that the Under-Secretary should read a whole list of things for which a person could be arrested under the Common Law for doing very little indeed, and that that was an argument why we should extend it, and enable a policeman to arrest a person for doing something or nothing, or for thinking something which he ought not to think. I am afraid that under the first paragraph of this Regulation, where it says:
Any police constable may arrest without warrant any person who so acts as to endanger the public safety, or who is guilty, or is suspected of being guilty, of an offence against these Regulations.
7.0 p.m.
It is an exceedingly dangerous power to put into the hands of the police. It may well be that a person, who might be going to make a speech, would be liable to prosecution because the police thought he was going to say something that was not complimentary about the Home Secretary, and because he would therefore be suspected of endangering the public safety. It is a very dangerous power to give to the police, and it is because these
powers have been given to them, in spite of the fact that the hon. Member says the police have acted with moderation and it may be that in the majority of cases they have, that in a number of cases the police have acted with anything but moderation. It is not too late for us to ask that these dangerous powers shall be withdrawn by the passing of this Amendment. Police officers of every description have said things in connection with cases brought under these Regulations that they would never have dreamed of saying without the Regulations. The Regulations have allowed many of them to act with a bias which they would not have displayed but for the Regulations.
The Home Secretary announced that, if we would submit any case to him, he would inquire into it, and he assured us that he was a generous-hearted man and not brutal, and that we ought not to attack him because he did not deserve it. Here is a case which I would like him to look into. A prisoner was in the dock at Doncaster Police Court for a minor offence. The police officer, giving evidence, said the prisoner was one of those men who would not work themselves and did all they could to intimidate others from working. He added that the prisoner could work, but was imbued with the Socialistic idea that it was easier to steal than to work. These Regulations have made it possible for the police to think that they are doing right in saying things like that when giving evidence. It is because of the encouragement that has been given to them, through the operation of these Regulations. I would like to see bias of that description abolished in all the courts all over the country. I do not object to giving the name of the superintendent in question. Here is the superintendent of the division—Superintendent Minty. I do not like to think of any superintendent or police officer using his powers with political bias, whether it be Tory, Liberal, or Labour, when giving evidence against an unfortunate prisoner, and to have him think by saying such things he is going to get the prisoner convicted. It is not a desirable thing, and it ought not to be done. A superintendent of police in charge of the district ought to have more sense and discretion than to make remarks of that kind. I am asking the hon. and gallant Member, in view of his promise, to look this case up
and see if there was any reason for this man making these remarks and, if there was not, to enforce the necessary discipline. I am sure that in regard to many of the cases round Doncaster, if the moderation of which the right hon. Member spoke had been used, hundreds of them need never have been brought before the courts. These people have caused trouble instead of avoiding it, and it is because powers have been put into their hands by foolish Regulations like this.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I am surprised that the Under-Secretary of State should say that the right of trial is not denied because, unless I am very much mistaken, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Lee) cited a number of cases in a previous Debate in which he showed that in that particular district quite a number of people had been taken off to the police station without any charge being made against them and that some were dismissed after spending a night in the cells while other cases were withdrawn when the came into Court. Such a Regulation as this puts it into the hands of officious constables and superintendents to take action of this sort, action which is undesirable and which throws discredit on these Regulations and on the whole administration of the law. It seems to me that a constable should have some good ground before he arrests a man. There is nothing to prevent the ordinary course being followed or to prevent a charge being made at the time a man is taken to the police station. That was not done in the cases which were referred to. It is very regrettable that so much should be done to bring the law into contempt through power being put into the hands of constables in this way.

Captain BENN: I had rather hoped that somebody was going to defend this Regulation. Not a single word has been said on its behalf in the whole of this Debate. There are learned Gentlemen, supporters of the Government, sitting opposite who will not get up and defend it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman only read from a primer of elementary knowledge that if you destroyed a railway train or committed certain other offences you may be arrested. He has made no defence. His only defence was that he did not think it was going to be continued. We have here the
widest invasion of public liberty that can be imagined and certainly that has ever been part of the law of this land. A man not only may be arrested without warrant, but premises may be entered where it is suspected that anything is being done contrary to the Regulations, and that something may be that somebody is in there discussing with another a speech which, when delivered, might, in the opinion of the police, cause disaffection. This sort of thing can only be justified by extreme national danger. It was drafted in a time of great national danger, for it was drawn up—and this should be remembered—when we were in a life and death struggle with Germany. The Under-Secretary comes here and admits the trouble is nearly over and the country has resumed its peacefulness, and all he can say to defend the Regulation is that it will not be needed in a day or two. He asks us to continue this Regulation, and there is not a single hon. Gentle-

man opposite ready to support it. I see the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), who is learned in the law—

Mr. D. HERBERT: I am not a. member of the Bar—the only people who are learned in the law.

Captain BENN: I said "learned in the law." I did not know it applied only to barristers.

Mr. HERBERT: It should.

Captain BENN: The hon. Member is learned in the law, and yet he will not get up and defend this Regulation. Nobody who has any respect for the ordinary rights and privileges of citizenship will do so. and it was to call attention to this that I rose.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 211.

Division No. 506.]
AYES.
[7.11 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Briant, Frank
Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton. James


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wedneshury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Connolly. M.
Lansbury, George
Stephen. Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn. William
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, w.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin. Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.



Groves. T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Purcell, A. A,
Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bennett, A. J,
Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Berry, Sir George
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Albery. Irving James
Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Blundell, F. N.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler. Sir Geoffrey


Atholl, Duchess of
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Atkinson, C.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Caine, Gordon Hall


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Campbell, E. T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cassels, J. D.


Balniel, Lord
Briggs, J. Harold
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barnett, Major Sir R.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hills. Major John Waller
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hilton, Cecil
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Clayton, G. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Preston, William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ramsden, E.


Cooper, A. Duff
Holt, Captain H. P.
Remer, J. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ropner, Major L.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rye, F. G


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dawson, Sir Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Drewe, C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Savery, S. S.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Elliot. Major Walter E.
Joynson-Hlcks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shepperson, E. W.


Ellis, R. G.
King, Captain Henry Doublas
Skelton, A. N.


Elveden, Viscount
Kinloch. Cooke, Sir Clement
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fermoy, Lord
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fielden, E. B.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Storry-Deans, R.


Finburgh, S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Streatfield. Captain S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Forrest, W.
MacIntyre, Ian
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Foster, Sir Harry S.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foxcroft, Captain C, T.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Fraser, Captain lat
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Frece, Sir Walter de
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gates, Percy
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Withers, John James


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore. Sir Newton J.
Womersley, W. J.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hanbury, C.
Murchison, C. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hawke, John Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.)



Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pennefather, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Penny, Frederick George
Major Cope and Mr. F. C,


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perring, Sir William George

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in line 4, at the end, to add the words
and to the substitution in Regulation 14, lines 1 and 16, of the word 'shall' for the word may.'
The Home Secretary said to-night that he was proposing to revoke some of these Regulations, if not all of them, on Thursday. I and the rest of my colleagues who have been urging upon him to revoke most of the Regulations hope that he will not cancel Regulation 14, even on Thursday. There is a need for Regulation 14 to remain, this week, next week, next month, next year. When Labour comes into power after the next General Election—[Interruption]—
that is sure to happen—I hope the first thing Labour will do will he to give the powers under Regulation 14 to the Secretary for Mines. If the Secretary for Mines had the powers under Regulation 14 it would be far better for the miners and for I he community generally. This is the fifth time I have moved this Amendment. If the Government had accepted the Amendment on previous occasions, it would have prevented them from repeated blundering and from acting as they have acted; we should not have had the coal tragedy we have to-day, and the reputation of Ministers would have been altogether different from what it is. Certainly the Prime
Minister's reputation would not have been smashed as it has been. When the coal dispute began we regarded the Prime Minister as an English gentleman, whose word was his bond. We no longer look upon the Prime Minister's word as his bond. At the beginning of the struggle he said:
I wish to make it as clear as I can that the Government is not fighting to lower the standard of living of the miners or any other section of the workers.
When he made that statement we thought he meant what he said, but, looking back, we are bound to say he could not have meant what he said when he uttered those words, and we cannot rely upon what the Prime Minister says. If the Government had accepted this Amendment and amended this Regulation, the Prime Minister would have been in an altogether different position from that which be is in to-day. I want to ask the Secretary for Mines why this Regulation was included among the Regulations? Was it merely for the purpose of window-dressing —to make the other Regulations look decent? Did they include this Regulation without any intention of putting it into force? If this Amendment had been accepted earlier, the dispute would have come to a very different end. No doubt it is ending in poverty, misery and starvation for the miners, but the miners will not be the only ones to suffer. The Government will suffer, and the coal-owners will suffer. Although they may be boasting to-day that they have won the fight, they will find that it was a victory not worth winning, and they will regret the terms they are imposing on the men now.
The reasons for accepting the Amendment to-day are even stronger than they were in the past. Under this Regulation the Secretary for Mines could have dictated to the coalowners and have prevented them from forcing upon the men the brutal terms they have imposed, treating the miners worse than the Government treated defeated Germany after the War. The coalowners are dictating terms that are a disgrace to them, and are an even bigger disgrace to the Government, because the Government might have had the power to prevent them from imposing such terms. In my opinion the amendment of the Regulation in the way I propose is the only way to peace in the
coal industry. The coalowners are forcing the miners to start work under three years' agreements. Everybody connected with the coal industry knows there will be no three years' peace. If next year the coal trade improves, if there be a boom in trade—and the coal trade has always moved in cycles, with periods of bad trade and periods of good trade—the miners will be bound to smash the three years' agreement. At the first opportunity—next year, or whenever the chance comes—they will be bound to wipe out the humiliating terms the owners are inflicting on them to-day.
When we were discussing this Amendment last month the Secretary for Mines questioned my ability to understand it. If I was not able to understand the Regulation I do believe that I understand what the Amendment would mean to the Regulation. It would give the Secretary for Mines power to direct the production of coal, to control the distribution of coal, and give him power to do what he urgently needs to do to-day, and that is to fix the price of coal. With regard to the fixing of coal prices, the Secretary for Mines said in his speech last month:
I hope by the various negotiations which I have been able to carry out that we have got the price of coal steady."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1926; col. 835, Vol. 199.]
I do not know whether there is very much for the Secretary for Mines to congratulate himself about. I was rather surprised when I saw a placard in the streets of London on Saturday announcing, "Price of coal to be cheaper on Monday." I wondered what it meant and when I got an evening paper I found it meant that the price of coal was to be reduced by the huge figure of 1d, per cwt. The Secretary for Mines will say to-night that he has steadied the price of coal. The reduction is from 4s. per cwt. to 3s. 11d, per cwt., so, that poor people still have to pay £3 18s. 4d. per ton. I can see nothing there on which the Secretary for Mines can congratulate himself. This Regulation, amended in the way we propose, would give him the power to fix the price of coal. The price of £3 18s. 4d. a ton is not only a disgrace to the coal merchant and a disgrace to the Government, but a disgrace to the Secretary for Mines, because., according to a statement issued by the
Minister of Mines, it cost in the last month the pits were working before the stoppage 17s. 3d. to produce a ton of coal. That was the figure for England, Scotland and Wales. If it costs 17s. 3d. in the month of April to produce a ton of coal, it ought not to cost anything like 17s. 3d. now, when the miners are working for less wages and putting in longer hours. If the price of coal is less than 17s. 2d. per ton, the Secretary for Mines should not be satisfied with the people in London being charged£,l3 18s. 4d. per ton.
The Secretary for Mines told us to-day that he had seen the President of the Coal Merchants' Association and that association had undertaken to regulate the sale of coal. The Secretary for Mines ought not to be satisfied with leaving this matter to the President of the Coal Merchants' Association, and its members just charge what they please and to distribute the coal just as they please. The price of coal is very exorbitant, and nobody can justify £3 18s. 4d. per ton. Therefore I urge the Secretary for Mines, instead of dividing the House against this Amendment, to accept it for the purpose of enabling him to fix the price of coal. There is huge profiteering going on, and at present. the Minister seems to be quite helpless in the matter, and I want by this Amendment to give the right hon. Gentleman power to deal with it. Huge profits are being made out of the sale of coal both by the coalowners and the coal merchants.
With regard to the distribution of coal I understand that the Regulation dealing with the limitation has gone. I hope the Minister will he able to tell us what the limitation on the distribution of coal has cost, and he ought to tell us whether that cost is going to be borne by the local authorities, or will it be shouldered by the Government and the Secretary for Mines? With regard to foreign coal the Secretary for Mines, in answer to a question which I put to him, said:
I can assure the House that the coal which the Government have bought is being used to maintain the service electric power stations, gas works, and various public utility undertakings which require assistance of that kind.
I want to know if the foreign coal which the Government is buying is now going to the particular places mentioned by the
Secretary for Mines, and has the right hon. Gentleman a guarantee that those particular places he has mentioned will continue to take the foreign coal? In to-night's evening papers we read that the underground railways are in trouble because of bad foreign coal. We can quite realise why those undertakings do not want to continue using foreign coal, and I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines what is going to be done with the foreign coal which the Government have contracted for? There is another danger, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us for how long ahead the Government have contracted, the price of the coal and when we shall cease importing foreign coal into this country? Again, I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that in 1921, for months and months after the coal mines, started in that year, because of the. blundering of Government officials in contracting so far ahead foreign coal was coming into this country for months after the mines had started work. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House how much coal is contracted for and how much he is paying for it, because it seems to me that the hulk of it will be thrown upon his hands.
There is a most important reason why the Minister of Mines should accept my Amendment, and it is that it gives him power to direct the production of coal. Last month the right hon. Gentleman argued that this Regulation did not give him that power, but I want to point to Regulation 14, which gives the right hon. Gentleman power to issue directions to. every owner. In Sub-section (3) of Regulation 14 it is provided that
Every owner and person for the time being in possession of any such property as-aforesaid, and every person engaged or employed in the production, manufacture, treatment, transport, storage, distribution, supply, shipment, or disposal of coal (including the owner, agent, and manager of every coal mine and every officer thereof), and every person using coal.
Under that proviso the right hon. Gentleman has power to control the owner, agent or manager of every coal mine and every officer thereof. At present there are no signs of peace in the coal industry, and therefore I want the Secretary for Mines to have this power so that he can direct the owners, agents and managers, and see that the
miners get terms that will tend towards peace in the coal industry. The action of the coalowners and the terms they have dictated show that they cannot be left with a free hand in this matter to do just what they please. They care nothing for the miners or for the Government. They have got all they want; they have now got eight hours, and they have had the Government supporting them all along the line. They care nothing for the public or for the Government, and for these reasons I ask the Minister to consider this Regulation, and accept my Amendment in order that he may give directions to the coalowners, the agents and the managers of the mines.
I want the Secretary for Mines to tell us, after all the Government have done during the last few months to assist the coalowners, whether they are satisfied with the conduct of the coalowners. I remember when the Eight Hours Bill was going through the House of Lords the Prime Minister stopped that Measure because the Yorkshire owners, on a very small matter, were not carrying out their promise. I would now like the Secretary for Mines to tell us whether the Government are satisfied with the conduct of the coalowners. The Government must now realise that private enterprise stands more condemned to-day than it did at. the time of the Sankey Commission, and there is more urgent need, if this great industry is to be properly carried on, for the Government to interfere. The Prime Minister told us that there would be no interference with industry, but there is more need to interfere and take control of the coal mines to-day than there ever was before. The only way for the Secretary for Mines to save a little bit of his reputation, and the reputations of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Home Secretary, is to accept and carry out my Amendment, which I hope will not be turned down, because, in my opinion, it. is a very important proposal. In fact, I believe it is the most important of the whole of these Regulations.

Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I am quite convinced that when these Regulations are brought into force the most important and the most useful
of them will be found to be the one which we are seeking to amend. This is the fifth time we have brought this Amendment before the House, and if the Government had shown as much courage in looking after the interests of the community as they have shown in answering the beckoning calls of the coalowners, we should not have had the difficulty which the country has had to face during the last 30 weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has covered the main points, but I wish to emphasise that part of his speech dealing with the question of the price of coal, and I ask the Minister of Mines to take some action in regard to this particular matter. I remember in August last the Secretary for Mines said:
Hon. Members stated that nothing has been done with this Regulation, but they will do well to remember that from the very start the Government have been able to commandeer and control the supplies of coal that were in the country at the time, as well as the other matters dealt with in these Regulations.
At that time one of my hon. Friends asked the right hon. Gentleman: "What have you done with regard to prices?" and the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Government have taken very considerable action which has tended to keep prices down below the level to which they naturally would have soared hut for the action of the Government.
As a matter of fact the Government have done nothing with regard to regulating the price of coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor said that prior to the stoppage the average price of coal at the pithead was 17s. 3d. per ton. In my own county it was 12s. 3d. per ton, and that was the average selling price of all classes of coal going from the pithead upon which the workers had their wages based. To-day the consumer is being asked to pay £4 10s. per ton for foreign coal. The London tube railways are now in a bad way because they cannot develop as much power from foreign as from English coal and consequently passengers are experiencing very great inconvenience. I want the Secretary for Mines to concentrate on this matter, and use the power which this Regulation gives him to deal with coal merchants and other people. As a matter of fact, it has been said in this House before that if we have in the mines of this country an average selling price of coal at the pithead of
20s. per ton there will be no further trouble in the coal mines of this country. At the present time we have men working for 6s. 8½d. per day.

Sir W. MITCHELL: With free house and free coal.

Mr. WHITELEY: At the present time they are going to work for 6s. 8½d. per day. That is a big reduction of wages, and that has taken place after an extension of hours. Under these circumstances I think the Secretary for Mines at least ought to see to it that if the merchants are going to be allowed to keep their prices up to £3 10s. or £3 18s. per ton, he should see to it that some of that profit goes to the miners who get the coal, and there should be an average price fixed at the pithead to prevent profiteering and a price which will guarantee to the man who gets the coal some little benefit from the high prices which prevail.
If the right hon. Gentleman will concentrate upon that, I think that even at this late stage when all the men who can get back to work will probably have done so by the end of this week, he will at least be rendering some service both to the workers themselves and to the consumers. The Government could have prevented some of the hard-won conditions, which have been in existence for 60 years, from being broken, if they had had the courage to take this matter over, rather than pandering to the interest of the coalowners. Customs in the coal trade of this country that have been won by trade union efforts of over 60 years' standing have been swept away by the coalowners, and they talk about harmonious co-operation! I am absolutely sick of hearing from people on the other side of the House the phrase "harmonious co-operation between employers and employed." Here was an opportunity for the coalowners of this country to show real harmonious cooperation, and they came along and secured their full pound of flesh, and gloated over it. If the right hon. Gentleman had had any concern for the interests of the whole country, he could. even now, take this matter in hand, and see that the miners got in some little degree that square deal about which the Prime Minister talked, and that the consuming public got at least some
advantage and some freedom from the exploitation of profiteers.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): As on previous occasions, it is again my pleasing duty to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment on his perseverance in what is, perhaps, if I may say so with all respect to him, a not very good or intelligent cause, have tried hard to explain to him on several occasions that the powers which he thinks his Amendment contains are not there. It is, apparently, no use my going on trying, but I can assure him that I have very high authority for what I have previously said, and, therefore, I need not repeat it now. One or two things, however, have been said by him and by the Seconder of the Amendment to which I desire to reply. In the first place, both hon. Members said that this was the one Regulation which they wished to retain, and the only one for which they had any respect at all, and they then proceeded to say that, if this Regulation had been used properly, the Government would have shown proper care for the interests of the community, instead of which they had done nothing at all. That. really indicates such absolute ignorance—I do not use the word offensively—of what has been going on during the whole of the stoppage, that I am sure they will be glad to have a reply.
Their remarks suggest that all through the stoppage such provision of coal as there has been has been perfectly natural, that no one has been working, that no one has been doing anything to bring the community through its troubles. So far as that is any reflection against myself, I do not mind, but. I want the House to know that the country owes an enormous debt of gratitude to a body of men throughout the country who, all through this stoppage, have been working day in and day out to secure that the very inadequate supplies of coal that were available have been efficiently distributed, although, of course, the amount available for distribution and the quantities that could be obtained in individual cases have been extremely small. If the hon. Members knew these facts—obviously they do not—

Mr. WHITELEY: Oh, yes, we are aware of all those facts.

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot believe that they knew them—it would have been extremely ungrateful of them to suggest that nothing has been done under this Regulation, when the gentlemen of whom I have spoken have been working night and day saving the country from the terrible disaster that would have come upon it otherwise, and it is a little unfair to make that suggestion.

Mr. WHITELEY: We are not suggesting that at all.

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Gentleman said it, and he cannot get away from it. It is not fair to say that nothing has been done under this Regulation, when it is remembered that the whole of our power of distributing coal on the priority system in quarters where it was most needed, and thereby securing the food supply and the supply of other essentials for the whole population, the whole power of rationing and of restricting use where use was unnecessary, of granting licences, and so on, was derived from this Regulation, and has been extensively used. I will come to the question of prices in a moment, but I want first to deal with the very important things that it is possible to do under this Regulation. As to the work that has been done, it is a splendid thing, and vastly to the credit of those who have been engaged in it, that, all through this troublous time, not one gas undertaking or power station has had to stop, in spite of the inadequacy of the supplies which were available. No one likes to thank of what it would have meant if we had been, as we were time and again on the brink of being deprived of light or power. Cargoes have been split up, and small quantities from each ship have been distributed to undertakings all over the country; great undertakings have been standing with, perhaps, only one or two days' supply in hand.
Of course, these things could not be revealed while the stoppage was going on; it would have been very unwise to do that, because the public would have been put into a panic, and the stoppage might have been prolonged. Now, however, I am free to speak of them, and, when hon. Gentlemen say that nothing has been done under this Regulation, I want to pay a very real and serious tribute to
the work which has been done all over the country by which these very inadequate supplies have been made available, and this possible disaster has been averted. A great many of the restrictions that we have had to put up with have been taken off, but one remains, and that one it may be necessary to keep on for a little longer. I refer to the control of exports. It is clearly essential that our home industries should get their share of coal before any is allowed to be exported. It is quite possible that in some cases there may be a difficulty in dealing with exports from exporting collieries and areas, and, in any case of congestion of that sort, we have powers, and machinery has been set up, under which export can be allowed by licence if it really proves that there is no other satisfactory means of disposing of the coal. The one thing, however, that is likely to cause any congestion at this moment is the price. It is obvious that colliery owners cannot hope that the present prices are going to remain, and I venture to predict that in a short time a generall slump in prices will come about naturally. Everyone is holding off. Who is going to buy coal now, when they know that in a short time there is going to be a general reduction It is worth while, even if it impedes the work in exporting areas, to say that there shall be no export of coal from this country, as that would maintain high prices in this country. The first thing we have to do is to think of our own people. All through this stoppage the country has suffered bitterly from its effects—from the fact that owners and miners in the coal industry have not been able to settle their affairs—and the first interest of the country now is to get a full supply of coal, and to get prices brought clown to a level which will make that coal freely available, so that industries may restart and we may get hack to something like our previous prosperity.
A good deal has been said about prices, and, again, it has been suggested that under this Regulation a great deal that might have been done has not been done to deal with prices. It is perfectly clear that to suggest any elaborate price-fixing scheme at this moment, when we are on the edge of a slump in prices, would be ludicrous. The reason why it was not possible to do so during the stoppage
itself is, I think, not quite so obvious to everyone as it is to those who had the opportunity and misfortune to study it closely. I myself, with as much enthusiasm as hon. Members opposite, plunged into this idea of fixing prices and keeping down the price of coal, but I very soon found, after consultation with those who had had experience in this work during the War and at other times, that the difficulties were far greater than I had realised. During a greater portion of the stoppage, the coal en which the country was depending, and on which it was absolutely necessary that it should depend, was foreign coal. Without that foreign coal our power stations and gasworks would have stopped and there would have been intense suffering, panic and trouble throughout the country. Hon. Gentlemen ask why the price of foreign coal was not regulated, but how can any regulation that we pass in this House make any difference in the price of foreign coal? That is a thing absolutely beyond regulation by us, and, as long as it formed a large proportion of the country's supplies, and it was absolutely necessary that the country should have it, it was impossible to regulate prices in that way. If we had tried to fix a lower level of prices, it would have meant that the importation would have stopped, and all the troubles I have suggested might have occurred. It is a far bigger operation than hon. Gentlemen appear to understand. To take over supplies and merely fix prices will do nothing when we have foreign coal coming in. If the pit-head price is to be fixed, the retail price must also be fixed, and, if the price is to be fixed against the coalowner and the merchant, it is necessary to take over the whole output. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear"] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are never afraid of big State schemes, but when we are in the presence of a great shortage., and the machinery of distribution is so delicate that anything going wrong may mean that a whole area might be without coal, it will be seen that the risk of dislocation and interference was an absolute bar to doing anything of that kind.
Hon. Gentlemen may think it is quite simple to set up Committees in every town, but the retail prices must vary in different places, according to the distance
from the source of supply and so on, and it would be necessary to fix I do not know how many different prices for I do not know how many different sorts of coal in the various areas. To say that an operation of that sort. would be attended by no risk, at a time when the country was on the verge of serious disaster through the stoppage of light, heat and power in our great industrial centres, is, as I am sure hon. Gentlemen will agree on reflection, impossible. We are at the beginning of an obvious fall in prices, and it would be ridiculous to set up some great organisation of that sort, and thereby upset what would be the normal fall in prices. It is impossible for coal-owners to hold prices where they are, and, as regards the merchants, it will be possible to bring pressure upon them under this Regulation if necessary. Personally, however, I believe it is far better to obtain the desired results, if possible, by normal processes, and if the public continues, as it. has been wisely doing, to hold off buying coal until it comes down to reasonable prices, as it is bound to do in a very short time, I am certain that we shall soon return to normal prices, and, I hope, with normal prices, to something like the prosperity of which we have been for so long deprived.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the details of the operation in respect of which the Government obtained £3,000,000 in a Supplementary Estimate—at what price the coal was bought from abroad under that scheme, at what price it was sold here, and what effect it has had on the price of coal in this country?

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman all the figures for which he asks from memory. I can only tell him that this money has been extremely well used. Many an electric power station and many a gas works throughout the country would have had to stop working if it had not been for the coal which the Government were able to bring to their assistance. There need be no fear that, as was suggested by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, we shall be left with an enormous stock of Government coal on our hands. When the time comes, which is not yet, for giving a full account of the details of that transaction,
the House will certainly be entitled to it, and will see the details of the whole transaction, which I, at any rate, think has been extremely well managed.

8.0 p.m.

Major CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman was complimentary to those who deal with the distribution of coal. I am not going to quarrel with that, but I am going to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman himself at the beginning of this dispute, or the Board of Trade or whichever was the Department concerned, might have been a little more thorough in the measures they took to see that their Regulations were carried out. For instance, they placed upon local authorities the very onerous and entirely new duty of giving permits, and they also put penalties on those people who took more than their proper ration of coal. But they did not give the local authorities any power over the undertakings which supplied the coal or coke, and consequently there has been a great unfairness in regard to the incidence of these Regulations. But I am not concerned with labouring that point, because it is past and done with. What I am concerned with is the point of view in which the right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech. I would like to make a suggestion to him. I do not find myself in sympathy with hon. Members above the Gangway who wish to take over the whole coal business, but when the right hon. Gentleman says rather complacently that the public "is wisely refraining from buying," I cannot help thinking of the people in my own constituency, for instance, who, at the end of November, with the worst part of the winter just in front of them, are doing what the righ4 hon. Gentleman calls "wisely refraining from buying" coal. They are not "wisely refraining from buying"; the poor devils cannot afford it, and I would draw that to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman.
If I remember rightly, when these Regulations were discussed a month ago, the right hon. Gentleman said, I think in answer to the same two Members who have spoken this afternoon, that, with an increasing supply of coal, we were on the verge of a drop in prices. I have not got the OFFICIAL REPORT with me, but it is within my recollection that the
right hon. Gentleman urged that. Well, we have had this drop in prices and, as has been pointed out, it amounts to a penny a cwt. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what a price of 4s. a cwt. for coal really means to those people whose weekly earnings amount only to 30s., 32s. or 33s.? Does he realise that, with five or six children in the house, to those people the price of 4s. a cwt. means no coal, no heat, no warmth; it means suffering?
The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with the statement that he has the power under these Regulations to bring pressure to bear upon coal merchants and others. I agree that he cannot deal with foreign coal. I agree with nanny of his other arguments, but he has not replied to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) who made a comparison between the price that is demanded for coal of the retailer to the public, and the wages that the men who get the coal are receiving. Will the right hon. Gentleman do this? Under Subsection (4) of these Regulations
the Board of Trade may cause inquiries to ho held by any person or persons with respect to any matters to which any of the powers hereby conferred relate.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and give the public the facts of the case about the cost of coal to-day? I remember, some years ago, when there was not a coal dispute but when there was a. dispute on the railway, that the whole of London was covered with large posters giving what were called "the actual facts" about the railwaymen's wages, because it was said that misstatements were being made about the wages of the railwaymen and the Government of that day gave the facts. Will the right hon. Gentleman go to the small trouble of making inquiries about the costs of producing coal, of distributing coal, and the cost to the public to-day, and let the public know whether or not profiteering is going on? Then the people, who, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman are "wisely refraining from buying coal" but who, in my experience, cannot afford to buy coal, will have the satisfaction of knowing that that is not because somebody else is making a profit.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 197.

Division No. 507.]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. H., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J, (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J,
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Purcell, A. A.



Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy. T. W.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Drewe, C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ellis, R. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elveden, Viscount
King, Captain Henry Doublas


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Woston-s.-M.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Atholl, Duchess of
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Atkinson, C.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fielden, E. B.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bennett, A. J.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacIntyre, I.


Berry, Sir George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fraser, Captain Jan
Macmillan, Captain H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Blundell, F. N.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gates, Percy
Macquisten, F. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grant, Sir J. A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Briggs, J. Harold
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Burton, Colonel H. w.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison. H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Murchison, C. K.


Campbell, E. T.
Half, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hammeraley, S. S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Christie, J. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrst'ld.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Henry C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Clayton, G. C.
Hawke, John Anthony
Penny, Frederick George


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Perring, Sir William George


Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R.Scar. 4 Wh'by)
Preston. William


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hills, Major John Walter
Raine, W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remer, J. R.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hohter, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rice, Sir Frederick


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ropner, Major L.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities]
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemoutn)




Rye, F. G.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Withers, John James


Savery, S. S.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Womersley, W. J.


Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Shepperson, E. W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Main Question again proposed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no point of Order. I must put the Question.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 190, Noes, 76.

Division No. 508.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman


Albery, Irving James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fermoy, Lord
MacIntyre. Ian


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Atkinson, C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macnaghten. Hon. Sir Malcolm


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foster, Sir Harry S.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bennett, A. J.
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Berry, Sir George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Goff, Sir Park
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Blundell, F. N.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murchison, C. K.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrst'ld.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pennefather, Sir John


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)
Penny, Frederick George


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hanbury, C.
Perring, Sir William George


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Preston, William


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Raine, W.


Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Remer, J. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. O.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert.S. (York. N.R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner. Major L.


Cope, Major William
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn.,N.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dalkeith. Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jephcott, A. R
Shepperson, E. W.


Dean, Arthur wellesley
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Skelton, A. N.


Drews. C.
King, Captain Henry Doublas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Ellis, R. G.
Knox, Sir Alfrad
Stanley, Han. O. F. G (Westm'eland)


Elveden, viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Storry-Deans, R.


Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wilson. M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Winby, Colonel L. P.



Tinne, J. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Withers, John James
Lord Stanley and Captain Margesson.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Viscount



Vaughan-Morgan, Col- K. P.
Womersley, W. J.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Whitelay, W.


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Grundy, T. w.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Charles Edwards.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.

Question put accordingly.
That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 20th day of November, 1926, shall continue in

force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Act.

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 76.

Division No. 509.]
AYES.
[8.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Albery, Irving James
Christie, J. A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Clany, Reginald George
Frece, Sir Walter de


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, G. C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Frends E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gates, Percy


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Atkinson, C.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cope. Major William
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Goff Sir Park


Balniel, Lord
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bennett, A. J.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Berry, Sir George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Drewe, C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hammersley, S. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Ellis, R. G.
Hanbury, C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elveden, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thTd., Hexham)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fermoy, Lord
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fielden, E. B.
Herbert, S.(York, N.H.,Scar. & Wh'hr)


Calne. Gordon Hat?
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hills, Major John Wallri


Campbell, E. T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hilton, Cecil


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland).


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Murchison, C. K.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sueter, near-Admiral Murray Fraser


Huntingfield, Lord
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'brs)
Pennefather, Sir John
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perring, Sir William 'George
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


King, Captain Henry Doublas
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Preston, William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Raine, W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers
Remer, J. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Frederick
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I.of W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wise, Sir Fredric


MacIntyre, Ian
Ropner, Major L.
Withers, John James


McLean, Major A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Macmllian, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, W. J.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rye, F. G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney!
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savery, S. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)



Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shepperson, E. W.
Lord Stanley and Captain Mar.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Skelton, A. N.
gesson.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Staney, Major P. Kenyon



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Eiland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W, (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Dunnico, H.
March, s.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Alien Parkinson and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Charles Edwards.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of the Bill is to amend an Act which was passed in connection with the regulation of parks in 1872. The essence of this Bill is contained in Clause 2 (1), which gives the First Commissioner of Works power to make Regu-
lations for the propel management of the parks, the preservation of order in the parks and the prevention of abuses. Anyone who breaks those Regulations is liable, on conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £5. The old Act of 1872 had as its object the same things, namely, the maintenance of order and the prevention of abuses, but it was passed 54 years ago, and although the object was the same as the present. Bill, to make the parks comfortable and pleasant for law-abiding citizens, the method was different
from the method we propose in the Bill. The method of the old Act was to draw alp a set of Regulations and to embody those exact Regulations in a Schedule to the Act.
Anybody who broke those Regulations was summoned in exactly the same way as they can be summoned under the provisions of this Bill, but those Regulations were rigid and definite. Being rigid and definite, they naturally tied the hands of the First Commissioner of Works. They prohibited certain things from being done. Section 9 of the Act states that any rule made in pursuance of the First Schedule—the First Schedule being the Schedule which contained the Regulations—could be made and enforced, subject, of course, to being laid on the Table of the House. The rules, in other words, had to be in pursuance of the Regulations contained in the Schedule. The rules were only enforceable by summons when relevant to matters which were specifically stated and laid down in the Schedule. Fifty-four years ago is a long time, and no specific mention was made in those old Regulations of anything in connection with motor cars, wireless loud speakers, aeroplanes or other more recent inventions. However far seeing the individuals were who brought the Bill forward 54 years ago, it was impossible for them to cover everything that ought to be covered now. They could not anticipate all the inventions that would take place. So much for the old Act.
I may be asked, in connection with the new Bill, what Regulations we propose to enforce. It is quite obvious that it would not be judicious for me to state exactly what powers we intend to take under the provisions of this Bill. It would obviously lead to considerable trouble if people knew what rules we are unable to enforce at present. But I think the House is entitled to have an illustration of what I mean. A short time ago certain tipsters came into Hyde Park. They planted themselves in the vicinity of the Marble Arch. They gave bogus addresses advertising their tips, and certain people took advantage of their advice and possibly made fortunes and possibly lost a great deal of money. The newspapers stated in bold headlines that these tipsters were not actually committing any offence against the park regulations provided they sold their tips
outside the park gates. The result was that we had a large increase of tipsters.
Fortunately, on this occasion the Press were wrong, for we had powers to prevent these people advertising their wares, and we immediately made rules which were put into force. Hon. Members will no doubt hear with some gratification that these tipsters are no longer in the park. If we had not had these powers it is quite clear that this abuse would have continued, and it is possible that greater nuisances may be created if we had to acquaint the world at large of the rules which we cannot at present enforce. One case will show the necessity for this Bill—litter. It is a strange thing that at this moment the Office of Works has no power to prevent people scattering litter up and down in the parks. Any man or woman can deliberately tear up paper and make a nuisance of themselves, and we are not able to enforce our rules by law. We actually tried to enforce our rules by law in this connection; and we failed. When one considers the great beauty of our parks and the money and labour spent on them, it is most humiliating not to be able to prevent people throwing litter about, and the request we are making to-night in this Bill is a perfectly reasonable one. It is made in the interests of the community; so that the Office of Works will have power to be able to manage its parks properly. The London County Council has these powers at present, and, therefore, we are not asking for more than is granted the London County Council at the moment.

Mr. AMMON: I imagine there will be no serious opposition to the passage of this Bill, provided we can have a satisfactory assurance on one or two points. The Bill is wholly concerned with the Royal Parks, and does not touch those already under the control of the London County Council and the municipal authorities. It proposes to give powers to the Office of Works similar to those which are at the moment exercised by the London County Council in ifs parks. I should like an assurance on this point. Is it proposed in any way to interfere with the right of free speech or extend the existing Regulations dealing with the sale of literature hitherto possessed by the Office of Works? Are the Government going to rest content with the
powers they already have under the Act of 1812? I have looked carefully through the Bill and compared it with the principal Act, and I cannot see that there is any increase of the power given to the Office of Works, but it would be well if we could have an assurance that there is no intention whatever to interfere with liberty of speech, and that the Regulations dealing with the sale of literature will be the same as under the Act of 1872?

Captain HACKING: Perhaps if might shorten discussion if I give the assurance now. If the Bill pass into law, we shall have no more power than we possess at present in connection with speeches or literature in Hyde Park.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—[Captain Hacking.]

Orders of the Day — SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN IRELAND BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Salaries and Pensions of future Judges, 40 and 41 Vict. c. 57) and 2 (Power to direct trial without jury in matters requiring prolonged examination of documents, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Explanation of powers of Parliament of Northern Ireland to legislate with, respect to jurors and juries.)

The reservation by Section forty-seven of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, of matters relating to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland shall not be construed as precluding the Parliament of Northern Ireland from having power, subject to the other provisions of that Act, to make laws in respect of the following matters in relation to jurors and juries in that Court, namely, the preparation and revision of jury lists, and the qualification, selection, summoning and attendance of jurors.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. SLESSER: I think we should have some explanation of this Clause, because on the face of it it modifies the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Taking out of reserve subjects certain matters which in future may he dealt with by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I must not be taken as opposing this proposal in any way, but as it does alter the settlement arrived at in 1920 I think some explanation should be given why this alteration in the constitutional settlement arrived at is made before we pass this Bill into law.

Captain HACKING: I gladly respond to the invitation. The Parliament of Northern Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member knows, has passed an Act, which was prepared in conjunction with the Home Office, making certain changes in regard to such matters as the preparation and revision of the jury lists, and the qualification and selection of jurors, and such other matters as I described on the Second Reading of the Bill. These are matters of purely local interest, and hon. Members will realise that as it affects High Court juries as well as other juries it is necessary to declare that the reservation by Section 47 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, of matters relating to the Supreme Courts does not extend to them.

Clause 4 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without. Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (JUVENILE SOCIETIES) BILL [Lords].

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Exemption of certain juvenile societies.)

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "seventh day of Juno, nineteen hundred and twenty-three," find to insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
This Amendment is moved in order to elicit some information from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on a point
which was raised in Committee. The Financial Secretary was good enough to promise to look into the matter, and, if at all possible, to meet the claim that we made in Committee, relating to friendly societies operating in Scotland who find themselves between two stoofs. They were first of all registered in Ireland, although the particular branch which I have in mind is in Scotland; and when the Irish Free State was constituted they did not claim registration in this country. The society to which I refer has 8,000 adult members and 20,000 juniors. It is, therefore, not a very small society. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to do something to help the society out of the difficulties into which it will be plunged if this Bill is carried as it stands.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment. All the facts have been already cited by my hon. Friend. It is a pure accident that the society is placed in the position in which it finds itself now.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): It is quite true that when the two hon. Gentlemen opposite brought this matter forward in Committee I said that I would look into it before we reached the Report stage. The hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that I took the precaution of stating that I did not give any pledge as to the action which I might take. The hon. Gentleman has moved the Amendment as if the society for which he speaks had by some oversight or inadvertence omitted to take action which those responsible ought to have taken in consequence of the change of status in Ireland. I have informed myself since we were in Committee, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is very far from being the case. I will tell him exactly what took place. The hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Irish National Foresters (Scotland) Benefit Society. The original society was registered in Ireland, and after the constitution of the Irish Free State it became necessary under the, law for those branches of the society which were operating on this side of the Channel to constitute themselves as independent societies. It was not by any
means an inadvertence on their part that that was not done.
The Industrial Assurance Commissioner called the attention of this particular society to the position that it was in, and in June, 1922, it was informed by him that amendments of the rules could no longer be recorded in Great Britain. The society did not take any action on that. In May, 1923, a year later, they wrote to the Commissioner inquiring how they stood in regard to registration. Therefore they were fully informed as to the position and they were told by the Commissioner, in reply again, that they must register as an independent society in Great Britain. Again they did not accept the official view, and considerable correspondence took place between the Commissioner and the society on that point. It was not until April, 1924, a year after the passing of the principal Act, which we are amending now, that they came to the conclusion that they ought to act upon this official advice and register themselves as a separate society. They were, in fact, registered on 28th February, 1925. Therefore, so far as the formality of compliance with the law was concerned they had ample notice of what it was necessary for them to do. They deliberately refused to do it, and did not register themselves in Great Britain until two years after the passing of this Act. But that is not all.

Mr. DAVIES: I want to be fair and I am sure that my hon. Friend wishes to be fair also. He will probably be aware that all these societies must have annual conferences to ratify all the decisions of their executive, and that it takes sometimes about 12 months for the societies to get their business through.

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, but I am afraid it is not sufficient to account for the lapse of time. That particular point was never taken by them. I am assuming, what is very unlikely, that under their constitution they had no power to call a special meeting in such a crisis. At all events, that would not account for the lapse of two years. But that is not all. I find that the rules of the Scottish society give power to the executive to appoint juvenile collectors. The hon. Gentleman will see the significance of that. It is a point which has brought about this Bill. I refer to juvenile collectors for the juvenile fund. In the last return which
was made by the society, that is to say, for 31st December, 1925, there is no such fund shown as in existence; there is no junior fund at all, no payments have been made to collectors, and not a single one of the branch rules makes any mention of a collector, nor is there any payment to a collector in any of the annual returns which have been received from the branches up to now.
Therefore, I suggest this to the hon. Gentleman: I have been told, but have no definite knowledge, that in point of fact house to house collections are being carried out. If so, there is no authority for doing so under the rules of the branches. One effect of acceptance of the Amendment would be, I will not say to authorise, but to a certain extent to whitewash certain irregularity of procedure with regard to these juvenile members. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that under the circumstances—I do not suppose they were within his knowledge—it would not be reasonable to expect me to accept this Amendment. It was said in Committee by an hon. Member that he understood there were other societies which were in the same position. I have been making inquiries through the Industrial Insurance Commissioner, and, so far as ray advisers have informed me, there is no other society to which this Amendment would apply. In conclusion, I repeat what I said in Committee, that tills is not such a trifling matter as it might appear to be at first sight. If we were to accept the Amendment it would alter substantially the character of the Bill. The Bill is of the smallest possible scope, and is confined to an enlargement of the definition of juvenile societies, so as to enable the exemption which was given by the principal Act to be extended to societies composed partly of juveniles and partly of adults. The Amendment would go outside the scope of the Bill distinctly, and, in addition to the mere rectification or alteration of the definition in the principal Act, we should bring in societies which were excluded from the original Act. In those circumstances. I would ask my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment.

Mr. DAVIES: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand me
when I say that I have only submitted to him the information which was sent to me, and the information which the right hon. Gentleman has produced, does not tally with the information in my possession. I can quite see that the society, on one occasion at any rate, might not have carried out all that was required of it but I would also point out that the society has been placed in a very difficult position. In view, however, of the facts submitted by the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I state that the reference to other societies being concerned in this matter was contained in a letter which was forwarded to me, and I only made the statement on the strength of that letter.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY BOROUGHS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [18th June]. on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Conditions as to registration and inspection.)

(1) The death of any person shall not be registered unless and until there has been delivered to the registrar of the district in which such death has occurred a certificate, signed by a medical practitioner, of the fact of death and of the cause of death, as respectively in this Act defined, and such certificate shall be given only after he has inspected the body.

(2) It shall be the duty of the General Medical Council to establish a fund by equal
annual contributions from all persons on the register who are actually practising, from which such fee as they may decide shall be paid to every medical practitioner for each inspection and certificate.

Motion made, and Question proposed [18th June], "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. Basil Peto.]

Question again proposed.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. PETO: I ask the leave of the House to make a brief statement on the proposed New Clause. The matter was last before the House as long ago as 18th June, and, therefore, it may be convenient to the House if I recall the situation which in my view justified me in submitting this Clause to the House. The Clause was intended to put into this Bill something which my hon. Friends and I regard as vital. In 1910 a Departmental Committee inquired into the law relating to coroners. That Committee declared that the present law of death certification afforded every opportunity for premature burial and every facility for the concealment of crime. Having that evidence and much more before them, the Federation of Medica and Allied Services some years ago appointed a special Committee to consider the law of death certification, and after many sittings they decided on the draft of a Bill, which in fact was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) last year. The operative Clause in that Bill was:
A medical certificate of the fact of every death shall be given by a registered medical practitioner who has examined the body and is satisfied that life is extinct.
In the present Bill there is no such Clause. We have here a Bill which involves an immense amount of machinery, somewhat costly to the taxpayers and ratepayers, and my friends and I thought we were justified in asking that this Bill should not be passed without an operative Clause in it such as that which I have quoted—a Clause which was the justification for a Bill introduced only last year, based upon expert investigation of the whole matter. Under the present Bill there can be no disposal of a body without a registrar's certificate, but the registrar's certificate-only states that he has registered the death. I do not see that it is worth while for that provision to pass the Bill through this House and impose all this
expense on the ratepayers and taxpayers. For that reason I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to carry out his promise and to make a statement as to what are the powers which he can exercise under the existing law, and what he proposes to do by executive action to ensure that the fact. of death will be properly established in the case of a much larger proportion of people who are supposed to be dead so as to avoid as far as possible, all danger of premature burials. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that he possesses powers which will enable the Ministry to improve the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs in this respect either by the method of certification by a medical officer or some other means

Mr. GROVES: As I was the Seconder of the Motion for the adoption of the New Clause, it may save the time of the House if I intervene at this stage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I ought to point out that, strictly speaking, the hon. Member, unlike the Mover, is not allowed to speak a second time, but as the previous Debate took place so long ago as 18th June, I am sure the House will not refuse leave to the hon. Member to speak.

Mr. GROVES: I think it will save time if I speak at this stage. This question, affects the public, and there is a growing, interest in the subject. Recently the view has been very widely expressed that there should be verification by a medical man of every death before the interment takes, place. We are prone to be facetious on these subjects, but this is a most serious matter and I desire to restate the position in order that the Parliamentary Secretary may give us the view of the Ministry on the question. It is announced by the Registrar-General that only 40 per cent. of the people buried in this country are certified on medical evidence actually to be dead, and therefore, we think, without interfering with the public purse, that we should make what suggestions occur to us to the. Ministry for their consideration and that we should see if we can introduce in this Bill some machinery whereby we can get this very unsatisfactory state of affairs remedied. There have been glaring: instances—and I do not want to fall into the fallacy of arguing from a particular
case to general principles—where funerals have actually been commenced before death has taken place. I read in Committee a letter from an undertaker in Hull—I have it in my hand now—who stated that he was called to measure the body of a woman one morning at 9.30 and was told she had died at 5 o'clock that morning, and had been laid out for burial. While at the bedside, he noticed a eight movement of the fingers and lips, and in consequence called the husband, who, however, said he must be mistaken, as she had been laid out nearly five hours. Not satisfied, he (the undertaker) asked that the doctor might be sent for at once. This was done, and after examination he was told that his services would not be required just then, but that they would ring him up later. As a matter of fact, the woman actually died that evening.
That is only an isolated case, but it proves that there is something in this question, and when, as I say, we learn that only 40 per cent. of the people buried in this country are actually certified by medical men, I think it is cause for alarm. Our suggestion in the Amendment definitely laid down that the onus of responsibility should be thrown on the medical men to certify death, and we put this point to the Minister himself, but the whole question is one of expense. Everything in the world depends on that, apparently. First of all, the Government honestly said they could not find the money to do what we required, and the medical men will not do it, apparently, without further money, but I feel, and I have said in this House before, that the provisions in this Amendment would not entail any additional expense on the part of the country. After all, a panel doctor is responsible for a panel patient until life is extinct, and surely it should be the responsibility of a panel doctor to certify that life is extinct, and no person should certify that without being positively sure. My humble submission is that it is a panel doctor's bounden duty to see the body of a, patient before he certifies that life has gone.
In Poor Law and public institutions, like hospitals, a similar rule should operate, and in private life, where families have private medical practitioners, there would be no trouble whatever for the latter just to add the cost
of that additional final visit. No one would be the worse off, and all things, in my opinion, would be properly adjusted. I think this Bill gives an opportunity to the Government to make the necessary representations to the British Medical Council seriously to consider this matter and to see that this longstanding grievance is put right. That is stating the case dispassionately. I hope that, following our interview with the Minister of Health, the Parliamentary Secretary will make a statement as to what power the Government have to do something in the direction we suggest. There are many provisions in this Bill which we want to see on the Statute Book, and we do not want to jeopardise them, because of their great value, but we feel that there is a strong case for action in the direction I have indicated.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Inas much as this Amendment is an alternative to the Amendment in my name, which was origiNally a substantive Clause of the Bill with which I am Personally associated, I should like to explain briefly the attitude I take in regard to this matter. I may say that in the previous Bills which I have introduced in previous Sessions on this subject, my object has been to meet the particular objection put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto). I, Personally, wished to satisfy those who fear that there is a danger of being buried alive, and I went into the matter thoroughly with them and with others concerned in order to see what could be done. Therefore, the stage that they have reached and put before the House is one through which I have myself passed, with many others, but they have not gone so deeply into the details as to why, in my own case, found it impracticable to proceed with the matter. The matter is not merely one of expense. It is put forward as being one of expense, but the real question is that it is impracticable from the point of view of a doctor's time. That really meets the figure that has been brought up by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves), and what appears, at first sight, to be the appalling statement that only 40 per cent. of deaths are certified after verification by the personal view of the doctor, but, after all, if we refer to the experience of cur own lives, we can understand that, if a doctor is visit-
ing a patient regularly, over and over again, and the patient is gradually going downhill, the doctor cannot wait and be there, and is not wished to be there, every minute right up to the very last. The doctor sees the end coming, and he naturally discreetly retires. He comes and calls in the course of his round, and then he retires.
There can be no question about the end in any case, and in regard to those 60 per cent. of cases that are certified without actual view of the body, I think you may take it that in practically every case the doctor is quite assured in his own mind, when he signs the certificate, that death has supervened, as it was bound to supervene. There might be a case of an hour here or an hour there, but look at the doctor's practice. The doctor in ordinary practice is going round, and is busy from the time he finishes with his morning surgery in the morning till the time of his evening surgery in the evening, and all who know anything about a doctor's life know that he has no time even for meals, as a rule. He has scratch meals and a scratch life, and every now and then he takes what he can, when he can, in the way of an hour off, and enjoys it thoroughly. Then there are some who are infinitely more hardly pressed for time than others, and hon. Members opposite know very well that they are constantly raising the question of doctors being over-occupied and having too large a panel, while others are not sufficiently occupied. But this proposal is based on the idea that all doctors have a certain time free when they could attend to a patient, and could go and see that a body is dead, when they know very well that death has supervened, and everybody knows that it must supervene. I am afraid the proposal is impracticable. I admit that it would give greater confidence to the public if the proposal were accepted, but it is impracticable, from the simple fact that there are only a certain number of doctors in this country, and in a very large number of areas they are occupied practically their whole time.
If this duty were thrown upon them, they would undertake it, but it would be at the expense of their other patients. It is all a question of proportion, and of the two I think this is unnecessary. The only way to meet it is the way suggested in my Amendment, namely, after consulta-
tion with the Government Department. That was a possibility. You might have got a special officer appointed for this special purpose. It is proposed in my Amendment that county boroughs might, where they wished, appoint a special officer, and I have not the least doubt some of the boroughs—I am sure the London County Council—would have appointed a man who would help very materially in the worst cases under the consideration of the House at the present time. That would have been a trial experiment of infinite value. I am sorry the society that has this fear upon them did not accept the half-measure, but, instead, went for the whole proposal. That is impracticable, and, as so often happens in aiming at the impracticable, they have lost the half-loaf I put before them. As this proposal is impracticable, I Personally oppose it. I hope that its supporters may withdraw it, and that the Government will suggest some alternative in the matter.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment, but, to my mind, there seem to be two distinct objections. First of all, there is the country practice. In certain parts of the country, I understand, doctors can only see their patients once in a month. If the doctor happens to go on a Monday, and the patient dies on a Tuesday, he might have to go 20 or 30 miles to certify that the patient is dead. I think some provision ought to be made for these very scattered country districts. Then, as regards signs of death, it sometimes happens that it is impossible to say for certain that death has occurred until signs of decomposition appear. In some cases it may be three or four days, and, in such cases, it would hold up insurance money and cause a great deal of inconvenience. In town, or the vicinity of towns, it is perfectly feasible for medical men to do it. I was in practice for 23 years, and during the whole of that time I only missed seeing one patient who had died. If a medical man visits a private patient, he makes his ordinary charge; if it is a panel patient, he draws his panel payment at the end of the quarter. If it is a Poor Law patient, he still gets his fee, whether the patient is living or dead. In the case of a town or the vicinity of a town, it simply means that the doctor will have to pay one extra visit, which he
would have to pay if the patient did not 'die. Therefore, if anything can be brought in to safeguard the country practice, I would support this Clause.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I think the House must realise from the discussion we have had to-night some of the difficulties of this subject, and I have been asked tonight to state, first, the present legal position, and, secondly, to make a statement as far as the Government are concerned as to what they propose to do in the circumstances of the Bill not having any Clause dealing with the present matter. Under the 1874 Act, the doctor in attendance upon the deceased in his last illness, is required to give his certificate of the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief, and this certificate goes to the Registrar, and is an important factor in the system of safeguards in the interest of public safety. If there is no medical certificate, the Registrar refers the question at once to the coroner. If the certificate discloses an accident, an industrial disease, or any of a number of circumstances which may be described as appropriate for the consideration of the coroner, the Registrar refers to the coroner before registration. A certificate of death is thus, even in present circumstances, an important element in the evidence determining how the case is to be treated. The doctor is not required by this provision to see the deceased person after death before he certifies; nor is it necessary for the purpose of this certificate that he should do so. In an ordinary case, in which he has attended a deceased person until shortly before death, and is then informed by the relatives that death has taken place, that knowledge would enable him to certify the cause of death, provided the occurrence of death was consistent with the opinion he had formed.
That is a very brief and, perhaps, a very imperfect summary of the present law in regard to the matter. My hon. Friend and a good many others who have spoken to-day have put forward the view that in every case of death, inspection should take place by a medical man before a certificate is given, and it was with the view, of course, of meeting that situation, that my hon. and gallant
Friend endeavoured to meet the position by an Amendment which practically gave to the county council power, in certain cases, to direct a specially qualified medical man to make an inspection.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I say that it was not an Amendment, but was origiNally in the Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, it was origiNally put in the Bill, really on the suggestion of my hon. Friend, in consultation with many people who have considered this matter. In Committee, this matter was very much debated, and, in the result, that particular Clause, which my hon. Friend has put down as an Amendment to-day, was deleted from the Bill. In those circumstances, I think everyone will agree that it would be a very great pity, indeed, to imperil the very useful provisions of this Bill, which is supported by all parties, and in Committee received the support of everybody, on a matter of this kind. My right hon. Friend and myself, therefore, have considered what steps could be taken to meet my hon. Friend and others who hold very strong opinions upon this matter. It is true, as has been said, that in about 40 per cent. of cases of death the doctors do see the deceased after death, but the difficulty in meeting the present situation is very largely in the rural areas. It is very difficult to impose not only upon medical men but, in many cases, upon families charges and expenses which in many cases they would resent. The difficulty is that, in the result, somebody, in fact, has to pay for the medical inspection. Where you impose further duties on professional men, they naturally expect further remuneration for those extra duties.
That is the difficulty which confronts the Government in the suggestions made. It is true that they provide for inspection of the body in every case, but they have thrown the expense of inspection upon people who have not been consulted, and who, I think, would not readily accept the extra duty without payment. In these circumstances, the Government have considered what had best be done, and this is exactly what we propose. The plan of the General Register Office has been to meet this case by extending the system of references by the Registrar to coroners on the facts as disclosed by
the medical certificate of the cause of death, and if that policy is pursued, as we intend it shall be, the certificate will show whether the doctor has seen the deceased after death and how long before death he last saw him alive. It will thus be possible to secure that any cases not seen after death or a reasonably short period before death come under review by a coroner before registration or burial.
It is confidently anticipated that these arrangements, in addition to bringing a large class of the more doubtful cases under special review, will greatly increase the proportion of cases which are seen by a doctor after death, and that the improvement in this respect will be progressive to the extent of reaching by stages a standard which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would be willing 1:0 regard as satisfactory. In order that the progress and success of this course of action may be properly watched, the Registrar-General has arranged to obtain statistics showing annually the proportion of deaths certified by doctors who have seen the deceased after death, and I will undertake that these figures shall be published in the Registrar-General's annual publication. My right hen. Friend is further prepared to say that, should the results show that the action now proposed is ineffective and unavailing, he will be prepared to reconsider the whole question with a view to securing the objects which we all have in common by other means, either by executive action or legislation.
I believe that this undertaking, which has been very carefully considered, will meet the views of my hon. Friend and I hope he will be satisfied and that all Members who are quite properly interested in this matter will be satisfied and will be content with this statement and will on this assurance withdraw the Amendment, because they will agree that there are very many valuable provisions in this Bill which all of us desire to see become law at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. B. PETO: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps I may say that the Clause would not he in 'Order, as it would throw a charge on the rates.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next New Clause—(provisions as to registration, certificate—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) is practically identical with a part of that which has been withdrawn. The hon. Member's second New Clause—(general provisions as to verification and costs—would also throw a charge on the rates.

Mr. GROVES: May I ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker to explain why he considers that my second Amendment would throw a charge on the rates?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment says:
Where the local authority is satisfied that owing to lack of means it mould be a hardship for the relatives, the cost shall be met by the local authority, etc.

Mr. GROVES: That is very hypothetical.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is an hypothesis I agree, but the fact remains that there is a charge imposed.

CLAUSE 2.—(Registrars certificate and coroner's order.)

Mr. B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out the word "effecting," and to insert instead thereof the word "procuring."
I move this Amendment in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary for Health for Scotland who was in charge when this Bill came before the House on the 18th June, stated that he would be prepared to accept this minor Amendment standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for Stratford if we withdrew the Amendment which has just been debated by the House. The Amendment is to Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 which deals wholly with the question of where the body of a deceased person has been removed into England for disposal and no order has been given by a Coroner in respect thereof, the Registrar of the sub-district in which it is intended to dispose of the body, if it appears that the death is not required by law to be registered in England, shall give upon application by the person effecting the disposal and upon payment of the prescribed fee, a certificate to that effect in the prescribed
form. The person effecting the disposal is, of course, the undertaker, but it has been pointed out that in the case of a body brought to this country for disposal it is not reasonable to expect the undertaker to obtain this certificate and to pay the fee. The Bill ought to provide that the person securing the disposal of the body should incur this expense and ought to obtain the certificate. It is quite clear that in the case of bodies brought into this country for burial there must be somebody responsible for the deceased and who ought to take on this duty and it is not fair to place that on the undertaker.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel sure that after the withdrawal we have made, this will be accepted. I want not to reinforce the arguments in support of it, but to amplify them, and to say that the real person effecting the disposal of the body is the cemetery superintendent. I want to submit one more hypothesis. Assuming a body comes to Southampton and is to be buried in West Ham and the relatives are in West Ham, the person effecting the disposal of the body is the cemetery superintendent. Whatever has he got to do with the rendering of the certificate in this case? The people who are concerned are the relatives, the people who procure the body. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's department will consider this and that he will give his opinion on the matter. It seems simple, but we feel that the word "effecting" should be removed and "procuring" inserted, because when you come to consider it, the persons "procuring" is certainly not the cemetery superintendent but the relatives of the deceased person.

Sir K. WOO D: After the observations that have been made, I should be prepared to accept this Amendment, and I think, after what has been said, it will carry the commendation of the whole House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Notification of disposal to registrar.)

Mr. B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "seventy-two" and to insert instead thereof the word "ninety-six."
This is a still smaller Amendment, which I hope will be even more readily accepted. Clause 3 refers to the notification of the disposal to the Registrar. I am informed by the Cemetery Association that while this period of 72 hours or three days is, in the vast majority of cases, ample time to enable them to furnish the Registrar with the necessary notification as to the date and place and means of disposal of a body, that in some exceptional cases as much as four days or 96 hours may be required, and that therefore as this is a statutory Regulation that these things must be done within the 72 hours, they ask that 96 hours should be inserted instead of 72, in order to give time for exceptional cases.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that 72 hours is impossible in some cases. Our desire is to have an extra day because, owing to the question of bank holidays and of exceptional circumstances and epidemics, these things do not work out according to regulations, and we suggest this possible extension of time because we are assured by the persons connected with the industry that this is a very necessary Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I shall be very pleased to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Burial of still-born children.)

Amendment made: In page 3, leave out lines 19 to 20 inclusive.—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Form and destination of medical, certificate of cause of death.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 33, leave out the words "paragraph (2)," and insert instead thereof the words "paragraphs (2) and (3)."

In page 4, line 1, after the word "shall," insert the words
except where an inquest is held on the body of the deceased person."—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Registration of still births.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 5, leave out the words "by the Schedule hereto," and insert instead thereof the words "in the First Schedule to this Act."—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment as to payment of registrar.)

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where the person effecting the disposal is the incumbent of a parish, the fee payable to the incumbent in respect of the disposal shall be increased by the sum of sixpence.
I think that what is proposed by this Amendment is only a matter of simple justice. The Bill imposes certain duties on those who have to effect the disposal of bodies, and where that work is undertaken by the incumbent of the parish, it is only right that he should have this little extra fee.

Mr. B. PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask whether this Amendment is in order? Is it not an Amendment imposing a new charge?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think not. The extra charge will come upon the individual.

Commander WILLIAMS: Ought not the word "effecting" in the first line to be "procuring," in view of the Amendment we made a minute or two ago?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. In this case it would be the person "effecting" the disposal, and not "procuring." I shall be happy to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Repeals, extent, short title and commencement.)

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, to leave out the word "January" and to insert instead thereof the word "July."
This is an Amendment to alter the date on which the provisions of this Bill come into operation. For one reason or another it has taken some little time to get this Bill through the House, and instead of its coming into operation on the 1st January I desire to postpone it until July. It is obvious that certain arrangements will have to be made for bringing the Measure into operation, and that is the reason why I am postponing the date.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. GROVES: I would just like to say how pleased I am that we have now arrived at this stage and buried a grievance. I was pleased to hear the speech, made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) in illustration of a point we have been pressing for a long time. That remark of mine was not made facetiously; it was a real explanation of what we have been endeavouring to bring home to the House and one country. I once heard a, very good story about a doctor. His wife met one of her husband's patients and she said, "Well, Brown, I am pleased to see you about. Are you getting better?" Brown said, "Yes," and she remarked, "I was talking to the doctor about you only this morning, and we said we never knew how ill you had been until we came to make up the bill!"

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Measure deals with those who die; not with those who recover.

Mr. GROVES: It is not often that I obtrude myself upon the House, and all I wanted to say was that when we come to make up this Bill we shall regard it as a very great Measure indeed. There are many things in the Bill which are a credit to this House. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary is considering any extension of this Bill in the ensuing year he will pay attention to the details of the Amendments put forward in the name of my hon. Friend and myself. We do really think that the panel doctors of this country should be compelled by the Government, by the public and by the British Medical Association to put into operation the true and living testimony of the hon. Member here. It is the duty of panel doctors to see to their panel patients until life is extinct, and we think they should do this without imposing any additional charge either upon the nation or upon the family; and the same considerations ought to apply in the case of institutions and hospitals. In the case of a private medical practitioner there would be no additional charge—at least it would not be felt, inasmuch as it would go into the bill in the ordinary course. [Laughter.] Some people are prone to treat this question lightly, but there are provisions in this Bill which people in
this country have been seeking to pass into law for 20 years. What we are saying may seem to be facetious, but there is no shock like the shock of a new idea to people of this country. This question of premature burial has been a cause of anxiety to thousands of people in this country, and anything we can do to see that this matter is dealt with thoroughly by the medical fraternity will redound to our credit.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I would say only one word as a complement of what the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has just said. The really great feature of this Bill that will be found to be really useful is that dealing with the notification of still-births. I thank the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary and the House generally for their assistance in securing the passage of this Measure.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I thought this Bill was entirely non-controversial until I saw the Amendment on the Paper for its rejection. I am unable to discover what defects the hon. Member (Mr. Rhys Davies) who has placed this notice on the Paper has found to think it necessary to move its rejection. This is a Bill which is very urgently required in the interests of mental defectives themselves. There is a memorandum on the front page of the Bill which gives such a very concise and clear account of what it contains that I hardly think I should be justified in repeating it. Shortly I may say that the real substance of the Bill is to be found in the first Clause, which extends the definition of defectives.
Hitherto we have found ourselves limited and to some extent cramped in dealing with mental defective cases which were not defective from birth or early
age. There have been some extremely painful and distressing cases of encephalitis lethargica or sleepy sickness in which most serious changes have taken place, but the boy or girl not being of an early age could not be dealt with under the existing law. We have drafted the Bill so that cases of mental defect of this kind due to disease, injury or other causes may be dealt with.
There is a number of Amendments which are of minor importance and which might directly be described as drafting Amendments, and which are designed to make the Act rather more complete. There is one Clause—Clause 6—to which I would call attention, and it is explained by paragraph 7 in the memorandum on the Bill. Although the Act authorises combinations of local authorities, it does not enable the local authority to provide additional beds which could be lent to other authorities, but Clause 6 provides for such a procedure, and it enables the local mental deficiency authority and the local education authority, who have responsibility-for certain classes of defectives of School age, to provide an institution jointly. We hope that mutual arrangements will he made whereby the best use will be made of the provisions of this Bill. This Measure has the unqualified support of the Central Association for Mental Welfare, which comprises 50 Voluntary associations throughout the country. This Measure does not in any way interfere with the safeguards in the Mental Deficiency Act. Of course we all recognise the strong public anxiety which exists that people should not be treated, or, as someone would say, branded, as mental defectives without sufficient cause. I would like to call attention to the fact that elaborate safeguards are provided in the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and under the second Section of that Act we find in Sub-section (1), paragraph (e), the conditions which must be fulfilled before a mentally defective can be dealt with. A mental defective may only be dealt with by Order if in addition to being a mentally defective he is found
neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated; if he is found guilty of some criminal offence or if he is undergoing imprisonment, or is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Inebriates Act; if he is notified by the local education authority as a mental defec-
tive needing care and control; or, in the case of a woman, if she is in receipt of poor relief at the time of giving birth to an illegitimate child.
In addition to these general limitations there are the following further safeguards. There must be two medical certificates, one of which must be signed by a medical practitioner specially-approved for the purpose, and the case then comes before a judicial authority. The judicial authority must be satisfied that the person is a defective and that he is subject to be dealt with under the Act for one or other of the reasons mentioned above; and then he is only empowered to make an order if he thinks it desirable to do so in the interests of the defective. All these safeguards apply before the case is sent to an institution for care and treatment. At the end of a year special medical and other reports have to be made on each case and forwarded to the Board of Control. If the Board after considering these Reports and the means of care and supervision which would be available if the defective were discharged, come to the conclusion that the continuance of the Order is required in the defective's interest, they may make an order continuing detention in the institution for one further year. The same procedure is followed at the end of succeeding periods of five years each. In the case of a defective under the age of 21 years there is the further safeguard following, namely, that the visitors may when the case arrives at the age of 21, discharge the defective if they think his detention is no longer required in his own interest.
In addition all defectives detained under the Mental Deficiency Act are visited by members of the Board of Control from time to time. The patients are seen, and if at the time of one of these visits the Board feel that any particular defective can with advantage to himself and without danger to the public be discharged they have power to discharge him. The present safeguards are not diminished by anything in this Bill I, therefore, put it to the House that ample safeguards are already provided to see that no injustice or miscarriage of the beneficent provisions of the Act shall take place, and we make the fullest possible use of such institutions as we have. Seeing what very distressing cases exist of people who under the present law
cannot be sent to these institutions because they do not come within the technical language of the original Act I urge the House to give this small Measure a Second Reading.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
I claim the indulgence of the House, in moving this Amendment, to explain the reason why it was put on the Paper. There is no one on this side of the House who wishes for one moment to prevent the Minister of Health from dealing with the consequences of that terrible disease, sleepy sickness. When, however, this Bill was introduced in another place, the only substantial reason given by the Mover was that the Ministry had consulted some medical experts on the subject of widening the scope of the Act of 1913. The first statement I desire to make is this—I do not know whether the House really appreciates the importance of this Measure—that this question is much too important to be settled by medical experts alone.
Up to 1913, so far as I understand it, the doors of our mental institutions were as wide open as the right hon. Gentleman wants to make them now for placing people in those institutions; but, because of an agitation throughout the country against putting people away in such institutions who ought never to be there, an Act was passed in 1913 limiting the number of cases and specifying by Statute law what type of ease was to be dealt with. What the Minister is going to do in this Bill, whether he likes it or not, is to destroy what are practically the main provisions of the Act of 1913. He used the argument that the provisions in the original Act were not destroyed at all; but I should like to call his attention to the fact that Section 2 of that Act states definitely that only young persons are to be dealt with, and only in conjunction with their parents or guardians. This Bill, however, is not confined to children at all; it opens the door so that everyone of any age may be dealt with under its Clauses. If the right hon. Gentleman can convince me that the Bill can be so improved as to meet what we require in this direction, we shall then decide our attitude as
regards pressing this Motion to a Division.
There is however a much stronger argument than that against the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, only a few months ago the Royal Commission on Lunacy issued a Report. I have not made myself conversant with every line of that Report, but I have looked at it very carefully, and can see no indication in the recommendations of that Commission with regard to this particular point. Surely, if a Royal Commission, having discussed for several months the problem of lunacy in this country, thought that an Amendment of the law of this kind was desirable, they would surely have brought forward a recommendation on the lines that the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing, but, as I have said, I can find nothing in the Report to indicate even a desire among Members of that Commission that this change should be made. Again, a Committee was appointed some time ago—and perhaps I ought to explain that I draw a distinction between the mental deficient who is harmless and the mental deficient who is criminal—has recently submitted a Report on the question of sexual offences against young persons. In that Report, however, there is a definite recommendation that this change should he made. That is a point which I must admit, and it should be remembered in our discussion. Still another Committee is inquiring into the problem of mental deficiency and crime, namely, the Committee on Juvenile Offences. I do not know what that Committee will report, but I am sure it must be giving consideration to the very issue we are discussing to-night. I venture to think, therefore, in view of the Report of the Royal Commission on Lunacy, the Report of the Committee on Offences against Young Persons, and the Report, which must be available in a few months' time, from the Committee on Juvenile Offences, dealing with all these problems, that it is very unwise to bring in a Bill of this kind before those Reports have received consideration by the Government.
10.0 P.M.
This question is really a very important one—much more important than the right hon. Gentleman has indicated in his short speech. As an illustration,
I may mention that in some countries, notably in the United States, they have a very nice way of dealing with criminals. If a man becomes a habitual criminal and is sent to a prison or penitentiary three or four times, they certify him as insane, and retain him in a mental institution all his life. That is a very convenient way of dealing with criminals. Some of us on this side of the House, and I should not be surprised to find that there is a considerable Volume of opinion in the country to the same effect, think that the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this Bill, is opening the door far too widely. If it is merely intended to deal with sleepy sickness, why not specify that disease and its consequences, in the way that other types of mental defectives are specified in the Act of 1913?
I have still another complaint to make. The right hon. Gentleman would lead the House to believe that this is a very small and simple Measure, touching only the question of sleepy sickness and no more; but in his own memorandum it is stated that the effect of the Bill is
to eliminate the words 'from birth or from an early age' and to bring within the scope of the Act all eases of mental deficiency whether innate or induced after birth by disease, injury or other cause.'
That is to say, the whole of the present Tory Government might be put in an asylum at any time.
I think I have said sufficient to indicate the lines of our opposition to this Measure. I just want to repeat that, the door having been closed in 1913 in such a way as to limit the number of cases that were to be sent to mental institutions, I think it is very unwise that we should to-day again open it so wide. The right hon. Gentleman will not be the person who wit! have to administer this Measure when it becomes an Act. The local authorities, the medical practitioners, and the magistrates will come in. Some people sometimes show a keen desire to send their relatives into an institution because they are poor; others, probably, because they are too rich; others, again, because they are inconvenient to deal with and so forth. I say seriously that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us much more cogent reasons than he has given in support of
this Measure; and, until we hear better reasons than we have heard to-night, we shall be bound to consider seriously whether we shall not oppose the Measure in the Division Lobby.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
My remarks on this Bill will be more in the nature of an attempt to obtain information than of opposition. I am not one of those who manage to stir up a great deal of righteous indignation on Bills of this sort, and who at once suspect that people are actuated by ulterior motives in trying to get rid of people into institutions. I know that there is always, in all parts of the House, a great desire to make sure that no one is deprived of his freedom unless there are really sound and genuine reasons for it. There is another mistake that is often made when dealing with this subject, and that is to endeavour to treat it as a humorous subject. I do not propose, if I can avoid it, to commit either of those two evils. May I add that I do not think that in the past the legislation with regard to mental deficiency has been abused, nor do I think that a very large number of mistakes have been made.
The first thing that worries me about Clause I of this Bill is the point which rely hon. Friend has just mentioned. I can quite understand the necessity of extending the Act of 1913 in order to bring in cases of sleepy sickness, but why should it be necessary to introduce the words
whether innate or induced after birth by disease, injury, or other causes.
What other cause can there be? Could the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea of the type of person whom they have in mind? If a person has been suffering from sleepy sickness, it will have been introduced by disease. There are many cases of mental deficiency at birth, and I have also in mind a number of cases of ex-service men who received, during the War, serious head wounds, and are now mentally defective. That has been produced by injury, so that the categories which I have run over have been produced by diseases or injury, and I want to know what these words "other cause" mean? They seem to me to be too vague, and I
should like to know what type of case they cover.
The second Clause also seems to require some further information. According to the explanatory Memorandum,
Under the existing Act a defective may be placed under care if he is found to be also neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support or cruelly treated. Clause 2 (1) of the Bill adds to these categories any defective not under proper care and control.
I should have thought if a defective was not "under proper care and control" that defective would be included in the category "neglected, abandoned or without visible means of support or cruelly treated." What type of person is it who would come outside the scope of those who are "neglected, abandoned or without any visible means of support or cruelly treated," and who would come under the heading presumably of being properly cared for, not being abandoned, having visible means of support and not being cruelly treated, but still being without proper care and control? That seems too vague, and I think there should be an opportunity for some further explanation.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said something about safeguards, and we are all agreed that there should be safeguards. I am sorry to say that I am not one of those who have a blind faith in the of medical experts. I will give the House one extraordinary example. The London County Council, in connection with its education authorities, employs doctors who are charged with the task of certifying children who are unfit to be in an ordinary School, and fit only to be in a special School. I believe that to educate a child in a special School costs roughly about twice as much as to educate a child in an elementary School. A few years ago, when the proposals of the Geddes Committee were put forward, the London County Council passed the word round to its staff and officials, including its doctors, that there had to be economy, and one of the results of that economy that a considerable number of children in the ordinary schools who previously were found to be mentally defective and who were to be put in the special schools, were found not to be mentally defective, and were allowed to remain in
the ordinary schools, probably because of the fact that the economy proposals were on foot, and it was found that the children in the special schools cost twice as much for their education as did the children in the ordinary schools. So, under the jurisdiction of a medical expert, when there is an economy campaign on foot there are not so many mentally defective children as there are when there is no economy campaign.
In regard to Clause 3, that
adds absence abroad' to the cases in which an order may be made without the consent of a parent or guardian.
I should like to make the purely Committee point that possibly the word "permanent" absence abroad might be inserted, so as to make it perfectly clear that advantage will not be taken of a temporary absence abroad of the parents of a mentally defective child, or a temporary holiday abroad, to shut a person up in an institution.
Clause 5
makes explicit the power and duty of local authorities to provide suitable training for mental defectives.
The question that I should like to put here is as to whether the Government propose to carry out this Clause, because the trouble has been that up to now there are thousands of mentally defective people, including boys and girls, roaming about the country at large. They are certified, and that is as far as anything is done until they commit some horrible crime, and then action is taken against them. But if this Bill is passed, I take it that the Ministry of Health are going to bring proper pressure to bear upon the people responsible for these institutions to see that not only are there defective individuals in these institutions, but that there is such training as is possible.
That brings me to the next Clause, with which the Minister specially dealt. That Clause enables the local authority to provide additional beds which could be lent to other authorities. I think, in a way, that the working of that Clause may be good from one point of view. Obviously, for an authority in a large industrial area that has provided an institution for these people, it is very difficult to provide the right type of institution, because to make these poor people
happy such an institution should be right away out in the country. That brings me to another point, which is that the word "institution" is wrong altogether, and I hope that the Minister has no idea of encouraging local authorities to bind themselves together into joint authorities and establish vast institutions to hold thousands of these people. That would be simply like building a huge prison. Excellent experience has been obtained in some parts of America through the establishment of some of these colonies which have become almost, if not quite, self-supporting. If this Clause means that it will be possible for an authority in an industrial area to make an arrangement in a rural district to have a colony established there, then that is all to the good, but I hope it will not mean huge institutions. The last Clause is one upon which I am somewhat uncertain. It
enables the local mental deficiency authority and the local education authority (who have responsibility for certain classes of defectives of School age) to provide an institution jointly.
I want to be sure that this does not mean that a section of children who are at present under the education authority for their education are going to be removed from the responsibility of the education authority, and are going to be put under the responsibility of the Mental Deficiency Committee of the County Council. I quite see that the Clause, as it stands, means that the education authority will have the joint responsibility with the Mental Deficiency Committee in running this, but this Clause means also that inside these institutions it will be possible for a special School for the mentally defective to be established. The point I want to be sure about. is that the special School is only going to be used for the educational training of the inmates of that institution, and that it is not going to be used also as a day School for mentally defective children who may not be specially mentally defective after all. Our standard under the education authority is not perhaps quite the same as it is under the Ministry of Health. If a child is three standards behind it is regarded as sufficient to be put into a special School, but I want to know whether this passage in Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 means that a special School
may be set up inside an institution only for the children of parents who are resident in that institution.
I hope also those who will be appointed to teach in these schools, which will be the joint property of the Mental Deficiency Committee of the County Council and the education authority, will be properly qualified teachers. We have had so much trouble in the past with industrial schools and the type of person who used to be allowed to teach in those institutions, that one would like to realise that these poor mentally defective children will be taught by teachers who have had special training to deal with mental deficiency. I do not propose to vote against the Second Reading because, generally speaking, I think it is a useful Measure. I cannot see that there is any likelihood of it being abused to any great extent. At the same time I should like to feel certain that in this or other stages of the Bill some of the inquiries I have made may be answered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not then second the rejection of the Bill?

Mr. MORRISON: I said when I rose, when your Deputy was in the Chair, that I rose to Second the Amendment.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I understand that there will be an opportunity later on in Committee to table Amendments, and in view of that opportunity I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Commander WILLIAMS: I think it is rather necessary on this occasion to take another point of view. Everyone sympathises most sincerely with the Minister in his natural endeavour to get this Bill through. We have passed some half e dozen Measures this evening, all, we will say for the sake of argument, good, and all useful. In this case we are dealing with one of the most unfortunate sections of our people. There is not a human being that I know of who would not wish to do his level best to help these people in any way that is possible, but this is a Bill which undoubtedly, in the Memorandum itself, opens the door wider to taking on more cases. If we were in normal times, and if we had an Opposition and all that kind of thing, we should have a very long Debate, demanding to know from the Govern-
ment exactly what this meant, what was the extent of it, whether it would place burdens in the first place on the taxes and in the second on the rates. We should demand a very great deal more than has been done at present and it is only right and fair, if the Bill is to have a Second Reading, that we should have some sort of explanation as to how far it is intended to carry it and whether the burdens are going to be mainly on the taxpayer or on the ratepayer, because wherever you go now you get the same complaint—more burdens on the local rates or on the taxes. I should like to ask two simple questions. First, is it likely to mean an enlargement of the present institute and staff? I think I have a right to know that. Then under this Bill in connection with the 1913 Act, have you a sufficient staff and sufficient institutions generally throughout the country to deal with those you take in at present? If you have not, until you have them I do not think it is very useful to try to enlarge the number of people you take in. I am not a doctor, but I think you want in the first place to deal with the worst cases. You want to help those people more than anyone else. But it is no good opening the door wider unless you have adequate provision to deal with those you can already deal with. We must have some explanation as to what the cost is going to be and whether you can deal with more people than you do at present.

Mr. AMMON: I should like an assurance in connection with the matter of encephalitis lethargica, that the same provision should be made for dealing with those cases. I am a little concerned about their classification in this Bill. These cases are not what are known under the medical term as mental defectives. I gather from some experts that many unfortunate victims of this complaint are intellectually unimpaired and very often are more dangerous because of lack of moral control. It will be within the recollection of the Minister that when Magistrates and Judges have had eases before them of persons afflicted with this complaint, they have deplored the facts that there have only been two ways open to them, either to make criminals of the persons charged or to send them to asylums to be treated as mental defectives. In these cases they
have deplored that fact, and have said that some home ought to be provided in order that they could get proper care and attention. Some of the experts, writing to the "Times" in a correspondence which I initiated some time ago, expressed the opinion that, in these circumstances, these people could be cured. It seems to me that under the provisions of this Bill there is no guarantee that there will be any special preparation for or any special care given to this type of person. Lumping them together, if I may use that phrase, in a mental asylum, may be very much worse for them, and may do much more harm than happens under present conditions. It would be well if we could have a little further explanation on that point. I presume that these cases are included in Clause (2) which says:
For the purposes of this section mental defectiveness' means a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind, whether innate or induced after birth by disease, injury, or other cause.
I do not know how far these words go. I notice that they are quoted in the Memorandum. The determination will be very much in the hands of the Court, or whatever authority pronounces judgment upon these people and commits them to after-care. The concern that I have—the Minister is acquainted with it from our previous correspondence—is that these young people, whose condition mostly takes the line of a complete moral breakdown, which expresses itself in sexual irregularities, in stealing and so forth, should not be placed in a position where they will be classed with lunatics, roughly speaking, which will have such an effect upon them as utterly to break down both the moral and the mental side of their character. Whether they are to be treated in precisely the same institution or whether they will be treated in some other educational institution which will care for them when they reach the age of adofescence, I do not know.
There is one further point, which has been suggested to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). It would seem as if there is a removal of certain safeguards when they reach the age mentioned in the major Act, in Clause 2. That Clause says:
A person who is a defective may he dealt with under this Act by being sent to or placed in an institution for defectives or placed under guardianship—
(a) at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or imbecile, or at the instance of his parent if, though not an idiot or imbecile, he is under the age of twenty-one.
That safeguard is not in this Bill. Perhaps the Minister will put it right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is nothing in the Bill to take it out, therefore it remains.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Can the Minister tell me whether there is in the country sufficient accommodation for what this Bill proposes to do? Further, is he sure that placing the Board of Control as the arbiters between right and wrong is the right thing to do, seeing what has happened in regard to the Board of Control, over which no one seems to have any control, not even the Minister? I want these things made clear before I shall support the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: The short time that has been given to the consideration of this Bill will be very useful as it deals with a most important subject. I feel that Members in all parts of the House will be anxious to see not only that proper safeguards are being maintained in regard to the care of these unfortunate people but that further provision is made for dealing with the number of cases which it is not possible to deal with under the present law. Several questions have been put to the Government as to the provision for these unfortunate people; whether there is sufficient accommodation available at the moment. The answer to that is that taking the whole of the cases throughout the country there is not sufficient accommodation at present, but the benefit of this Bill is that it will enable the accommodation which at present exists to be more usefully employed. In certain cases a certain number of beds are available, while in others they are not. It is perfectly true, taking the position as a whole, that we shall need more accommodation, but under this Bill we shall be able to make better use of the accommodation which is available at the moment.
A good many questions have been raised by hon. Members, and they will no doubt forgive me when I say that many
of them can be dealt with in Committee, where they will be carefully considered. The hon. Member opposite was not quite correct when he said that we were destroying the main provisions of the Act of 1913, because prior to that Act there was no power in this country to deal with a mental defective at all. Then he also says that we are opening the door in order to deal with people of all ages. We are opening the door to certain cases, and it is very necessary that the door should be opened. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has repeatedly brought before the House unfortunate cases, which are perhaps more prominently before the public eye than before, of sleepy sickness, and has indicated that if we are to do our duty as a Ministry of Health—something further has to be done. Let me read the latest Report of the Board of Control, which, after referring to the number of cases which have unhappily arisen in his connection, says:
There are certain legal difficulties of bringing some defectives of this class under the Mental Deficiency Act, though they are clearly in need of the care and control for their protection which would be provided under that Act.
I thoroughly agree with all the statements which have been made as to the type of care and attention which should be given to these cases. We want more of the hospital spirit in the treatment of these unfortunate people, and if hon. Members will look at the Bill they will gee that the treatment which is made available is, first, supervision, secondly, guardianship, and, thirdly, institutional care. I agree that we want to banish from our minds any prejudices for which there may have been good reasons years ago; but anyone who has studied the treatment which is given to-day to the great mass of these people, will agree that they receive every consideration and care now. We want to provide for them in one of three ways. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said that we should wait for other reports. I believe that the first who would object to that would be the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), who is constantly urging us to make provision for cases of this kind.
The definition, regarding which a good many criticisms have been raised to-night, has been very carefully settled by many
eminent medical men whom we have called into consultation, with a view of arriving at something which will meet all the classes of cases which ought to be treated. We should have been quite prepared, naturally, to consider any suggestion which would improve the definition, but it is the result of consultation with a good many people who are eminently fitted to give an opinion. There was criticism of the words
(2) For the purposes of this Section mental defectiveness ' means a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind, whether innate or induced after birth by disease, injury, or other cause.
The question was put, why "by other cause?" You have naturally to cover any cases which may not arise from disease or injury. From the legal point of view it may be held not to be a disease, because it unhappily often occurs that the trouble follows an accident. This definition is put in in order to cover cases of that kind. It is not with a view of bringing in anybody who ought not to be included. It is done with the desire to give such treatment and assistance to all who need it. That is the true test of this definition—are we going to bring within the limits of the Clause all those who really require treatment in respect of their illness? It is not with a view of locking people up or of putting them away, but the question is whether we can give them the best assistance that is possible. Various other suggestions which have been made to-night are Committee points. I was asked a question as to the expense of this Bill. There is no Financial Resolution required. Therefore, so far as the taxes are concerned, we are not making any further direct demand on the community. I must be frank, however. A Bill of this kind may very well call for further assistance, so far as the rates are concerned. It is impossible for me to give an estimate of what that expense may be, but in the long run, and taking a long view, I think it will be a tremendous saving to the community, for these cases, if not immediately assisted, from the point of view of both taxpayer and ratepayer, are about the most expensive class of cases. Therefore, I believe in the long run, whatever be the immediate expense, it will be better both for the rates and taxes to have this Bill, and I hope the
House will unanimously give it a Second Reading.

Sir H. SLESSER: I feel so strongly about this Bill, which is not in any sense a party Measure, that I cannot conscientiously allow it to get a Second Reading without giving the House certain opinions which I have formed about it. The Bill introduces an entirely new class of person into the category of mentally defectives, and it is well that the House should recognise the fact. The existing classification is very wide, and so strongly do I feel regarding the liberty of the subject that had I been a Member of the House in 1913 I think I should have followed the example of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and opposed at every stage the Act of that year. However that may be, the fact is that, enormously wide as is the present definition, it is limited to people who are mentally defective from birth.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Or from an early age.

Sir H. SLESSER: As has been said, before 1913 there was no such creature known to the law as a mentally defective. Then after great discussion the definition of the 1913 Act was set up and the description was limited to persons who were mentally defective from birth or an early age. Now we have an entirely new proposition which is that the term shall include anybody of any age who happens by injury, disease or other cause, to become what a doctor considers to be mentally defective and what a Magistrate or a Court is prepared to certify as such under the terms of the Measure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. He says the new definition enables persons of any age to be brought in. I put it to him that that is not so. What the Sub-section says is:
For the purposes of this Section, mental defectiveness means a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind.
The words used are "development of mind," and development of mind only takes place before adult age, and therefore the definition is really limited.

Sir H. SLESSER: am obliged for the explanation, and I wish I could be satisfied with it, but I cannot accept that view. I find here a reference to arrested development:
induced after birth by disease, injury, or other cause.
Therefore, surely it must mean that if a man at the age of 50 has his development of mind arrested, he comes within the terms of the definition. I hope our minds go on developing all our lives. I do not accept the view that the mind is arrested in its development at so early a stage as the right hon. Gentleman suggests and, as I understand the Bill, a man of 50 may fall into a state of mental defectiveness. I do not know whether that is so medically or not, but I should like to understand the point. The Memorandum uses the words:
Where the defectiveness arises at a later stage.
That means a later stage than birth or early age. This Bill does introduce into the possible class of the mentally defective, persons who formerly could not have been brought within that class. I Personally cannot allow a Bill like this which is giving enormous powers to doctors and Magistrates to go through without registering my protest. After all, in 1913 the Minister was then able to point to the considered Report of a Royal Commission, which had considered the whole question of the mentally defective. Where is the Report of the Royal Commission, which has considered the ease of all these persons who are now to be brought in? I see in this Measure, as in so many of these Measures, a well-intentioned waiving of the rights of the liberty of the individual. I, for one am not satisfied, from what has been said tonight, that a case has been made out for locking up this large new class of people. In fact, they are nearly all poor people. One very rarely finds a case of persons who can afford proper treatment being dealt with under these Measures, and I am somewhat surprised to find sometimes even hon. Members possibly on my own side not realising that it is really the poor people only who are controlled and detained in these institutions. I think the whole matter has been treated in a very superficial and brief manner and that it deserves much more consideration than it has yet received, and if my hon.
Friend is not going to divide against the Bill, all I can say is that, did he wish to divide against it, I should certainly support him in the Lobby, because I think there is a real peril to many persons whom doctors may consider mentally deficient and other people may consider sane under this Measure. Whether the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends or my hon. Friends will be the first to suffer under this Bill, I do not know. It goes far beyond sleepy sickness, which is only a sprat to catch a whale. The Bill deals with every "disease, injury, or other cause," and who knows where this thing is going to end? I want to be sure that, at any rate, someone has made a protest that this is a dangerous course on which we are embarking on insufficient information.

Dr. V. DAVIES: I am not sure whether I understood the Minister, when he referred to the case of encephalitis lethargies, to refer to elderly people. The Bill refers to a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind. A man of 50 who gets encephalitis lethargies and develops some of these awful symptoms afterwards is not necessarily suffering from arrested development or incomplete development. It is a perverted development, and I think the great benefit of this Bill is that it enables us to take charge of these sad cases at whatever age. I did not quite understand from the Minister that this applies to people of any age. I understand it to be so, but, if not, I think it ought to be so, because it is just as important that a man of 60 or 70 years of age should be under control after this disease as a child of 9 or 10, and as I should like to understand definitely whether people of all ages can be included under this Bill. I should also like before the Committee stage to see if we could not introduce the words "or perverted" into the definition of mentally defectives, because arrested or incomplete development is not sufficient.

Captain BENN: It would be well if the Minister would clear up this point of doubt. I understood in the Act of 1913 that it was a question of dealing with people suffering in this way from birth or an early age, and this is an extension, some say merely to adolescents who exhibit these symptoms, and others
say that it gives powers to deal with people of any age. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) thinks it gives power, or should give power, to deal with people of any age, but the Minister rose and told the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) that it dealt only with adolescents. The hon. Member for Royton said it dealt with persons of any age, and the Parliamentary. Secretary showed complete assent. Which is the case? Might we have a word from the Minister to say if it applies only to adolescents or to persons of all ages?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot imagine there is any doubt what my view is, because I have already explained it. My hon. Friend the Member for the Royton Division (Dr. V. Davies), confirmed my view that as the Bill stood it did not deal, as he thought it should, with people suffering from perverted development. I take it he thought it might arise where a person had arrived at a later age. That is a point which must be considered in Committee, but cannot be considered at this stage, and if the hon. Member is a member of the Committee, and brings up the point, it, of course, can be discussed. As far as my view is concerned, clearly it, is impossible at present to deal with all ages; it is only possible to deal with those mental defectives whose development has been arrested or rendered incomplete by one of the causes specified.

Sir H. SLESSER: At what age do people's minds cease to develop?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I say one word on that point, because I had the privilege of serving on committees with the experts who drew up this distinction, or something like it, and submitted it to the Ministry of Health. I may say it is quite clear in their mind that they wished only to extend it to the adolescent, and they did not intend to extend it to later ages. They did not consider those cases sufficiently numerous to require extension to them. There are some, undoubtedly. They felt it essential, however, to deal with the adolescents, but I take it even the most learned experts of our learned profession are liable to err in their definitions.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.